Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Is an RfC the correct way to go about the following problem?
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)
 * 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 and  are available for this. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * You should expect that to be mirrored at 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * @Rainbluetiful, you have an WP:RFCBRIEF problem. The bot will not post a 1400+ word long "question".  Look at the others in 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)
 * Ohh i see, thanks for the tip. I'm new to these kinds of stuff. Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And how many words can the bot accept in order for it to show? Rainbluetiful (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't try to start another RfC. I have replied at Talk:Light skin. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Req. inputs @ WT:BRD about Responding to RfC
Requesting inputs @ WT:BRD .. and/Vs #Responding to RfC. Thanks &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Pl. suggest format for RfC
I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn. 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? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @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. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Would wait and look forward to. Thanks &#32;Bookku   (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024 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)

Anchors
When Legobot removes the RFC template, it also removes the anchor/id number used in various messages. I wonder whether we should expand the directions here with a note about optionally adding an anchor for the id number, so that inbound links will keep working?

On the one hand, I reluctant to have even longer instructions. On the other hand, avoiding broken links seems like a good idea in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For now, it would need to be a manual action, as Legoktm is reluctant to amend Legobot (and wants to unload it to somebody else if a volunteer steps forward). But tags may also be removed manually, not just by Legobot action - such as when WP:RFCEND or WP:RFCNOT apply. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. We could, for example, change the wording from "To end an RfC manually, remove the   tag from the talk page" to say "To end an RfC manually, replace the   tag on the talk page with , where the number is the id number automatically assigned by the bot to the RFC.  The other parameters should be removed."
 * BTW, do you know enough Lua to give us an  parameter/alias in Module:Anchor?  It might be easier to tell people to keep the   parameter intact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I know no Lua. This is why I get so upset that templates that I've been happily maintaining for 10+ years get converted to Lua. Anyway, if the ongoing RfC has e.g. the corresponding anchor would be  - you need to add in the   part. The rfcid is a hexadecimal number and always has seven characters, I don't know why it's not six or eight. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone thought we'd never need more than 10 million. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seven hex digits allows for (16^7)=268,435,456 values which, if we assume ten new RfCs each day, would last us for 73,493 years. Six would be 16,777,216 (4593 years) and four would be 65,536 which allows for ten new RfCs per day for 18 years. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "However much you think you'll need, add three zeroes"? 73 years would have been overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)