Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting

There are multiple formats for Requests for comment. Some options are shown here. All of these formats are optional and voluntary.

When choosing a format, consider what kind of responses you need and are likely to get. Don't use a "voting" style when you want to encourage comments and collaboration.

Most popular
The most popular option is a single section containing all information and responses of any kind.

This format is simple and easy to set up, is suitable for most RfCs, and it encourages discussion and compromise as a means of finding consensus. Consider this strongly if you are asking an open-ended question and/or when you expect a typical number of responses.

Separate votes from discussion
If you expect a lot of responses, consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "Survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second sub-section called (for example) "Threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. You can ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section, but you can't require people to follow your advice. Editors are permitted to freely refuse your request.

This format encourages respondents to "vote" without engaging in a discussion, sharing alternatives, or developing compromises. It is most suitable for questions with clear yes/no or support/oppose answers, such as "Shall we adopt this policy?". Avoid this style for questions with multiple possible answers, such as "What kinds of images would be suitable for this article?" or "What should the first sentence say?" This style is used for RfCs that attract a lot of responses, but is probably overkill for most RfCs.

An RfC using this structure might look like this:

If you use this format, you must make sure that the same section headings are not being used anywhere else on the page. This means that you should use a section heading like ===Discussion (photo)=== and not just ===Discussion===.

Pro and con
For a question that has a "yes" or "no" answer, and people known to support each of the sides, then this side-by-side approach can offer a balanced view. This format is good for writing a neutral question on a contentious or complex issue by presenting both sides.

This format is not as good as simplest, most popular format for questions that require collaboration, such as developing ideas about how to re-write substantial parts of an article. This format works best when the "pro" and "con" comments are limited to short "headline" length summaries of the main points for and against the proposal. If you need to explain your reasons in detail, or if you have a reason that other people don't necessarily agree with, then add them underneath the table, as part of your own signed comment.

which produces the usual section heading, RfC tag, and question, followed by this table:

Responses to the question should be placed under the table; a subsection heading such as ===Comments=== may be added if desired.

What to do about the date stamp: Tables will break the entry on the RfC listing pages, because their pipes are considered to be parameter separators by the RfC listing template. When a table like this is used as part of the RfC opening statement, both the template and the timestamp (whether ~ or  ) should both be placed before the table. At any point, you can add a signature without a date by typing if you want to show who wrote which statement.

Separate support and oppose opinions
Sometimes it's useful to separate opinions according to whether the person is basically for or against something. This style is normally used only when a majority vote matters, and only when the quality of the arguments is relatively unimportant. This approach forces every participant to pick one side or the other, so it is only appropriate if the choices are binary (e.g., yes or no, with no possibility of middle ground). Avoid using this style unless you expect a significant number of responses, and you actually need to be able to count the (numbered) votes quickly.

This type of RfC layout might look something like this:

Remember that all section headings on a page must be unique. Do not use plain "Support", "Oppose", or "Discussion" section headings if those are already in use elsewhere on the page.