Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 20

Official languages lists
Hi, I've never done an RfC before, but I believe that it is the best option to solve a series of closely related issues. I'd like to ask some help on how to set this up. The two main issues I would like to resolve are
 * 1) when we Wikipedians should "count" a language as an official language for listing and categorisation purposes or not;
 * 2) whether, which and how to merge about 18 existing lists of official languages which are highly duplicative, WP:OVERLAPping and often WP:REDUNDANTFORKs.

About the first, Austronesier and I have had a passionate but respectful disagreement at Talk:Dutch language. At the "French-speaking" CfR, I summarised our exchange so far as follows: As far as I know, there is no consensus yet in English Wikipedia when we count a certain language as having the status of "official language". (Austronesier and I discussed this at Talk:Dutch language, without really reaching an agreement. TL;DR I think we need to be able to point to a legal text declaring Dutch the official language of the Netherlands (de jure); Austronesier thinks is it sufficient if multiple RS say "Dutch is the official language of the Netherlands", even if there is no law we can necessarily point to, but the government uses Dutch all the time (de facto)). We are still figuring this out. I would not be opposed to including the four countries mentioned in the list for now until there is a consensus. The conversation only stopped because Austronesier was too busy, but would like to resume it later. At Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18, Austronesier and I agreed to resume this later, and that official languages can play an important role in categorisation of languages by country and territory. This is especially the case for renaming and rescoping all subcategories of Category:Countries and territories by official language, which is currently in full swing, and generally has support, but also runs into various challenges. We also agree that it's not always clear when we should count this or that language as "official" in country X, or territory Y. Differences (not all of which we have discussed yet) include de jure and de facto status (e.g. not enshrined in the constitution or a regular law, but in practice used by the government in its communication with its own various institutions, its citizens, companies, NGOs, etc.; the UK, USA, AU, NZ and the Netherlands are all countries without de jure countrywide official languages), official language versus national language, officially (constitutionally/legally) recognised/protected minority/regional languages (this often has to do with the medium of instruction at schools across the country), co-official languages at sub-national levels like municipalities, and so on. Although I would like to continue this discussion with Austronesier, they don't have a lot of time right now, and I think we need larger participation to really establish a consensus anyway. So a broader discussion – and eventual conclusion – seems necessary.

About the second, I've identified about 22 lists of official languages which mostly WP:OVERLAP and are highly duplicative WP:REDUNDANTFORKs. I've described most of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, including my (so far unsuccessful) attempts to raise awareness and interest in the larger issue. So far I've attracted only limited interest by nominating some of these lists for deletion at AfD. Although both I and other editors have noted several times that WP:Deletion is not cleanup, I think I've repeatedly demonstrated that there is no other way to effectively draw people's attention to the issues that I see. 4 of the 22 lists of official languages have now been deleted after I nominated them (which at least seems to confirm I'm on to something), but apart from 1 editor (Walt Yoder), I've failed to get any editor who expressed an interest in merging List A into List B to look at the broader picture of all 22 lists. Neither at the WikiProject Lists, nor at the WikiProject Languages, have I encountered any interest apart from that 1 editor. I'm quite frustrated with the lack of interest (after about 3 weeks of tagging, pinging and pointing several editors to it), and I don't want to have to resort to nominating every single list for deletion before people begin to understand the larger problem we're dealing with here. Nor do I want to annoy lots of people who, with some justification, tell me that WP:deletion is not cleanup, because I know that already. But we do need a cleanup. We need a broader discussion about what one or more lists of official languages should look like, which WP:LISTCRITERIA to use, and finally what to do with the remaining 18 lists. I don't think they should all be deleted or merged, but I also don't have all the answers to what we should be doing instead.

I think that an RfC is the only option remaining. How should I formulate the two questions and what solutions should I propose? Thanks in advance! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * pinging you for your information, as you are the only two editors who have really shown an interest in the bigger picture, and addressing the structural issues. I thank you for your feedback, comments and advice so far. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nederlandse Leeuw, this is kind of a long list of problems. I wonder how much of this could be amicably resolved.  For example, you say that they are unsourced, so can you add some sources?  (I assume that nobody is objecting to you adding sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, in many cases that can be done. But there is no reason to do that 18 times over and over, let alone by using incompatible or no definitions of "official language" in our reliable sources. These two primary issues need to be solved first, otherwise we're solving nothing. The unsourced/synth issues are secondary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm quite confident it can be resolved amicably, actually. I've got no harsh feelings against anyone, and the fact that so far I got people to agree to delete 4 of the lists already, suggests a lot of them agree with the issues I have identified in particular cases. I just wish more people would be interested in looking at the bigger picture. But with a volunteer project like Wikipedia, I cannot demand anyone's attention. I just need to find the right approach to catch their attention in a way they like to engage with these issues. The RfC may be the best option for it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that the lists being unsourced is not of immediate importance, then you shouldn't mention that (at all) in the RFC question. An RFC question needs to be scoped tightly to the specific thing you want to learn.
 * It sounds like what you want to learn is whether it's possible to have an official language of a country without any government official officially declaring it to be one.  For example, is English an "official" language in the US, or is it only a "national" language?  Does that sound like the question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is one partial way of phrasing the first question when we Wikipedians should "count" a language as an official language for listing and categorisation purposes or not. The question should also include when regional/local/minority languages "count" as "official".
 * I guess you're right that the unsourced/synth issues aren't of primary relevance to the second question, and thus to the RfC as a whole, because these are fixable problems once we have solved the primary issues. I'll remove them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think that we need the same rules for categories as for article content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm striving for agreement between the items included in each List of countries and territories where Fooian is an official language and the items included in each Category:Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. The list can confirm the membership of each item with WP:RS to make sure each item and the set of countries and territories as a whole fulfill the WP:LISTCRITERIA. I suppose one could make a Listify argument against potential miscategorising, but there is quite a strong consensus in favour of keeping these categories, as long as they are WP:DEFINING and not WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Which is evidently why my CfRs to rename them all from Fooian-speaking to where Fooian is an official language have been receiving such strong support in recent weeks. So yes, I think (list) articles and categories should follow the same rulers. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At Articles for deletion/List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language, I've received some indirect support for an RfC by Visviva and SportingFlyer, and also the following comment by Barnards.tar.gz: Merge. I cannot tell exactly which article to merge it to, but I’m supportive of Nederlandse Leeuw’s efforts to rationalise this cluster of related articles. This confirms to me that more people are starting to look at the bigger picture. This makes me glad, and encourages me to further explore the possibility of an RfC. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Given all of this, I'm not sure that you really need an RFC at all. A handful of Proposed article mergers should get you everything you want.
 * But if you were determined to have an RFC for bureaucratic reasons, then I think should should handle the first question separately. Try something like:
 * "We have multiple lists and categories about official languages (example, example). Sometimes they use different definitions (e.g., one list includes ____ as the official language of ____, but the next does not, because it is a de facto official language rather than a statutory official language).  I propose that all lists and categories follow the same definition:  ______.  This would include [example] and exclude [other example]".
 * After that, I suggest adding a complete list of all potentially affected lists and categories. There may be some complexities around this (e.g., what if we had a "list of de facto official languages", and your proposal was to exclude de facto official languages?), but I think that overall it just sounds like you want an endorsement for your approach to the area, and any such complexities could be sorted out.
 * (If you decide to run an RFC, please avoid setting this one up like a vote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, it may sound like a consensus is emerging, but this is just a tip of the iceberg. It really does not yet solve the underlying problems just because some people have suggested an RfC might be a good idea. I have no idea if these three people are going to agree with me on de jure official languages or with Austronesier on de facto official languages, for example. I'm just relieved some people are starting to find the bigger picture interesting instead of what should happen to list X.
 * Your proposed formulations of the questions do help a lot, so thanks for that already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing Articles for deletion/List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language closed as Merge. Is this a confirmation that the RfC should go ahead (because it shows we should be merging more of these lists, and we still haven't established when a language "counts" as "official"), or do you think it's better if I nominated, say, List of countries by the number of recognized official languages for a merger next (because that is a logical next small step, that may better inform our next big step i.e. an RfC)? Thanks for the advice you've given me so far. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nederlandse Leeuw, I think you should use the Proposed article mergers process (NB: not AFD) for the List of countries by the number of recognized official languages, but I think you should wait until List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language has been merged.  My reason for recommending a delay is:  Some editors will vote against you/your proposed mergers if they think you are piling up work for other people to do, instead of doing it yourself.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing Thanks for the tip. There is a lot I don't know about merging processes yet, so this advice is quite helpful.
 * Firstly, I did intend to use WP:PAM rather than AfD for List of countries by the number of recognized official languages, but how do I prevent a situation where nobody comments on the Merge proposal for weeks? Case in point: At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, I've recommended merging 6 lists into 2 or more lists on 20 June. (Unintentionally, I even appear to have followed WP:PAM without knowing it, by putting the merger discussion on the WikiProject's talk page). It has been 8 days since, and nobody has responded, even though all 6 articles are tagged, and I mentioned it in several other places. I'm afraid that a complete lack of interest and participation will lead to it being completely ignored, just like Linshee's 22 Nov 2021 split proposal at "Talk:List of official languages by country and territory" was completely ignored (although she never tagged the page). Perhaps I have done something wrong? Should I have listed my "dukes of Bosnia" proposal at WP:MERGEREQ or something?
 * Secondly, I wouldn't want to give off the impression that I'm trying to have other people do my work, so I understand your recommendation. But, am I expected to carry out the merger of List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language into List of official languages by country and territory? If I had proposed Merge and the result had been Merge, it makes sense I should have that responsibilty (and I would have taken it up). However, I nominated the former for deletion, but the AfD closed as a merge. Am I expected to carry out a merge I didn't propose? I am prepared to take up my responsibility (if I have it), but it would seem odd to me if a nominator can be tasked to carry out a result they didn't propose. Because they are an involved party, and might be tempted to "sabotage" the process that didn't go the way they wanted, but are nevertheless expected to carry out. That's why I think I (as nom) shouldn't do it in this case. See what I mean? I'm just relatively new to the rules and conventions for merging, so I appreciate your help. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the first point, you can ping all the editors who participated in a previous related discussion (must be all of them, or as nearly all of them as humanly feasible), or you can advertise it elsewhere (e.g., Village pump or a WikiProject's talk page). If there is no response after a few weeks, you could just proceed with the merge.
 * Secondly, you personally don't have a specific or defined responsibility to perform the merge, but I do think it needs to get done soon. It's not your duty, but if the merge doesn't happen, that fact could derail your future plans.  It would be very practical for you to do it, even though you aren't required to do it.  (Pinging Visviva, who mentioned just redirecting it in the AFD). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the tips, this helps a lot. I'll get back to this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Malformed RFCs: what’s the process for dealing with them?
An editor has recently opened an RFC here. There was no current or recent discussion (the last one was May), so this fails RFCBEFORE, and the RFC itself is malformed (no category, a very un- neutral statement). What’s the process for dealing with these? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @SchroCat, it looks like the immediate problem was solved by removing the tag, but I wanted to add that a discussion a mere two months ago probably counts, and RFCBEFORE isn't absolutely mandatory anyway (it is "only" a very, very good idea). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Usually editors ignore issues and just comment. Although that's not the ideal many times. The RFC guidance is just an information page, which means it's not as binding as guidelines or policies. But many times it is enforced. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the things I value about experienced editors is their skill in navigating sub-optimal RFC questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a valid issue would be of more importance and "Malformed" might be from a lack of knowledge. is correct about the RFC guidance, "RFCBEFORE isn't absolutely mandatory anyway (it is "only" a very, very good idea)" and 's "just an information page", especially the part about "But many times it is enforced.".
 * These "other pages", Information pages, informative and instructional pages, Wikipedia how-to, or Supplement pages, and essays can really carry absolutely no weight (a very slim single or minority page) to at least some "explanatory essays" that if treated like "only an essay" and ignored, might be regretted. Consider WP:BRD: Has anyone ever been called on the carpet or maybe sanctioned for violating an explanatory essay? How about another explanatory essay, WP:NOTHERE. An editor can (I am pretty sure "and has") receive sanctions of blocking or banning for not being here. But it is just an essay!!
 * A valid point (I think) is that these should not be summarily dismissed unless someone is attempting to invoke one that is clearly subordinate to a policy, guideline, is actually not relevant, or is just some form of smoke.
 * Just recently I saw a close, and rebuke, I support: "Requests for Comment (RfCs) are used to reach consensus on issues after other types of discussions have failed to produce consensus. Please review WP:RfC. This should've been posted as an ordinary topic on this talk page, not an RfC".
 * It would be better (in my opinion and likely shared by some) if there was mention in the lead of "Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC" (from the body). This could potentially forestall some unnecessary RFC's. It does seem to be acknowledged that many only read the lead of an article. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have wondered if it's the other way around with policies and similar pages. For example, a surprising number of editors do not seem to know what "original research" means, and it is defined in the second sentence of that policy.  Far more editors can explain SYNTH than can correctly identify OR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In fairness to the editors who don't understand WP:NOR, it is the most horrible mess of a policy. It's full of what linguists call false friends: terms like "primary sources" that editors learned about at university, but here they have Wikipedia's own, idiosyncratic meanings.  (Unless, apparently, you happen to be a historiographer.)  NOR is our second-worst policy, after NOT, which is just a thinly-disguised bucket list of things some editors don't want other editors to do.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Quick question
How do I ask multiple-question RfCs?

Do I put the questions all in one RfC, or do I start separate RfCs on them (as long as their subject doesn't overlap significantly)? — AP 499D25  (talk)  05:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Please try to avoid starting several RfCs at the same time. RfCs use up a lot of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you follow me.  Which isn't to say don't use RfC -- please do! -- but just be mindful of doing so efficiently.  One big RfC is better than several small ones.  Wherever possible ask fewer, broader questions instead of small granular ones that try to give the community a menu of options.  So for example, instead of asking "Is the Spartan 3000 a Special Force Unit or a Quick Response Unit?", it's better to ask "How should we describe the Spartan 3000?"—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Actually I'm going to use 3O for the second question in the dispute I'm in right now, as that one only involves two editors, it's split off into its own topic, that would leave me down to one question to ask in the RfC. — AP 499D25  (talk)  11:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to get some help writing a clear question, please feel to ask for help here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Related: User talk:Redrose64 -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answers everyone!
 * I have another question I want to ask here: after starting an RfC, can I write my own comment, as well as invite an editor from the dispute that I was involved in to add their comment as well?
 * The reason for me wanting to do this to provide uninvolved editors with an insight as to what to consider when writing their comment.
 * To make sure not to canvass the RfC, the editor that I choose to invite will have an opposing opinion to me, and furthermore I will only invite one or two other editors. — AP 499D25  (talk)  00:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in Requests for comment/Example formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Untagged RFCs
I've seen two discussions recently, both started by less-experienced editors (e.g., 500–1,000 edits, accounts around a year old), that claim in the section heading to be an RFC, but they aren't. They were never tagged, the bot never listed them, FRS participants were never notified, etc. Both were on high-traffic pages (one at a Village pump and the other a COVID-19 article). In one case, I eventually corrected the section heading to indicate that it wasn't an RFC; in another, a more experienced editor added the tag and triggered the bot processes.

Has anyone else seen this happening? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I see it all the time, along with untagged RMs and untagged protected edit requests. Changing the heading or adding the tag both seem like reasonable responses, depending on the context. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If a non-RFC gets archived with an RFC-claiming section heading, that could be a bad thing later. Editors do rely on the section headings to be truthful when they're searching for prior RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RFCs as tools for canvassing
An editor has made several comments recently about RFCs being a tool for 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)


 * I can see how this arises. If there's a noticeboard where likeminded editors gather, then a neutral RfC notification on that noticeboard will affect the outcome... so for example, if I was starting an RfC aimed at removing the word "pseudoscience" from Bigfoot, someone placing a neutral notification on WP:FT/N might just possibly have the tiniest negative effect on my chances of success?  It's only a problem where a WikiProject that gets these notifications takes a collective view that conflicts with our norms.  I don't know how to solve it.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that idea was that the RFC itself, merely by existing, is a form of canvassing. Consider a possibility like "If you start an RFC that appears on Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture and is about infoboxes, you are canvassing an audience known to support a particular POV about infoboxes, because a lot of POV-ish editors decided to put that page on their watchlists".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply and Worthy of exploring. Just the idea would make one cringe. I will state, with more than surmising, that there will always be those that can and will exploit things to gain an edge.
 * "An editor has made several comments". Examples seem plausable. 's comments indicate an agreement that instances can arise and the examples are valid. This means there is a chance the editor is not trying to make trouble but sees, from his or her point of view, that there is a problem. In this case, it seems to me that a message on the editor's talk page, asking if there is interest in discussing this issue and possibly directing that editor here. ::If this editor joins in there would be four in some agreement so more than conjecture. At this point, other editors can see links to discussions that are apparently causing concern. This sounds like something that absolutely should be brought to the community for discussion. --  Otr500 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's worth bringing to the community unless there's something we can do about it.
 * So far, we have someone speculating that the "wrong" side could be prevailing at certain RFCs because too many editors with the "wrong" POV follow widely advertised discussions in which all editors are invited to participate.
 * What could be done about that? We can't ban sitewide discussions.  We can't hide the fact that RFCs are happening from the "wrong" editors.  Unlike the FTN example, there's no Infobox preservation noticeboard or Disinfobox opposition noticeboard here.  We're talking about neutral notices to an audience whose views are unknown (e.g., to the Feedback request service bot) – exactly the kind of thing that CANVAS supports.  So – what then?  The whole thing could just be a case of someone with a minority POV blaming the majority for being in the majority (I don't happen to know this editor's view or which way these RFCs have generally turned out), but beyond saying that majority vote isn't always a good way to handle complex content questions [see *Example], I'm not sure what to do.
 * [*Example: It's not difficult to find sources that say that various religious practices like prayer are pseudoscientific, but if you look at the definition of Pseudoscience, it's obvious that such sources are wrong/imprecise, because religion does not claim to be scientific, and claiming to be scientific is an integral part of what it means to be pseudoscientific.  We'd normally use Editorial discretion and find other sources, but a large discussion would likely attract support for including what amounts to a claim that religion claims to be scientific.] WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with this; if you are notifying a group of editors whose collective opinion diverge from the broader communities, then this is going to produce the same effect as canvassing; it is going to make it less likely that the result of the discussion will be one the broader community will agree with. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with RFCs inherently as canvassing. They can be engineered by editors to make canvassing more possible, but the most effective way to canvas is to post notices to familiar editors you know would take a certain side. Or put a reddit post up. This, however, is the easiest way to get caught for canvassing.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing. I would add, I think many disputes tend to skip DRN completely and go straight to RfC. If consensus is supposed to act as a safety net, the aspect that makes it "safe" seems to be that consensus is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, ie "The quality of arguments is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." So in essence, it seems to come down to quality of the "RfC closers" that ultimately decide. But how many RfCs have you witnessed where the minority argument (vote!) ultimately get their way, even if they make the "better" argument? DN (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * RFCs are perceived more as a vote now than ever before, IMO. The kerfuffle over WT:NOT is an example of this:  An alternative suggested later in the discussion, and not (AIUI) opposed by anyone, was accepted by the closing admin, with the result that some editors are complaining that it's invalid and couldn't possibly represent consensus, because the editors who commented in the early days of the RFC didn't get a chance to vote on it.  (Apparently, editors who comment on RFCs don't know how to use a watchlist, but that's a complaint for another day.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOT situation is slightly more complicated than that; earlier !votes indirectly opposed the later proposal but weren't taken into consideration because they weren't direct votes, and the later proposal was explicitly presented as workshopping for a future RfC, not a proposal to be considered in that RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Publicizing in noticeboards
I added some guidance reflecting apparent practice that I stumbled on last year. Also, some RfCs might look like they are unrelated to the noticeboard and may be removed, depends on the interpretation of the posting editor and the removing editor. For context, see this notice in my talk page, relating to this post. I started a discussion at the time in this page titled, Removal of my rfc publicizing from noticeboard. Notice how Nightenbelle says "you wouldn't go to the administrator's noticeboard to advertise an RFC either", which appears to contradict Jc37 previous revert rationale. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The advice doesn't feel actionable. It's sort of "Caution:  There is a secret list of noticeboards that will reject your notice".   WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think this has been happening enough to require guidance. And when it does happen, there's usually a natural learning moment where those at the noticeboard redirect the user elsewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Starting an RfC to contest closure of a previous RfC.. merely months later
Scenario: an RfC at a WikiProject ends with a clear consensus closure involving a healthy amount of editors. Consensus—local, but nothing that would contravene WP's MOS—was to remove material which contravened WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. A few months later, a new RfC concerning the same topic is started by a lone user who was explicitly invited to the first RfC, but declined to comment or respond in any way. The user now vehemently opposes the consensus and wants the previous RfC nullified. Is this acceptable practice? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Mac Dreamstate, is this question about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing or Village pump (policy) or is there another one of these happening right now?
 * Ultimately, the details don't matter, though: Any editor is allowed to use the centralized RFC advertising system to find out what the community's current view is.  Should an editor doubt that a previous discussion actually reflects the community's current view (which can and has changed from time to time), then that editor is allowed to start an RFC to find out.  It's true that editors who abuse the RFC system (e.g., by starting a dozen RFCs at once or by re-litigating every RFC whose results they disagree with) may find themselves on the wrong end of a WP:TBAN or a WP:BLOCK, but in principle it's a good thing for editors to get their questions answered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First one. There's getting questions answered, and then there's essentially saying "Screw your consensus of three months. I stayed out of the first RfC despite being invited, but now I want another RfC because it's important."
 * I will add that I'm not looking for outside involvement ("Wahh wahh, someone doesn't like my editing!")—nothing of the sort. All I'm looking for is guidance and an opinion because this is the first time I've encountered a near-immediate second-round RfC in my eight years of dealing with them. I want to ascertain what my next steps should be, if any; at least other than to re-affirm the outcome of the first RfC which was the result of extensive discussion, time, and effort. So if that involves rounding up the same editors as last time without canvassing, then OK. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes someone genuinely believes that the first RFC didn't capture the true view of the community, and in those cases we do want them to be able to open another community-wide discussion. It's usually best in such cases to let it run its course.  If a previous RFC recently came to a clear conclusion, then usually (but not always) the result is the same.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I emphasize the link Whatamidoing shared, WP:CCC,
 * Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Naked requests for reconsideration (a request for a new conclusion without any new facts or arguments) are not acceptable. We talk a lot here about the need to make the best use of volunteers' time and asking the community to decide the same thing twice is not that.  There are plenty of cases where a repeat would be reasonable (question asked a different way to get more participation, significant new arguments that didn't appear to be considered last time, etc.), but the case in point here doesn't seem to have any of that.
 * I don't think that the opener's failure to participate in the original RfC affects the appropriateness. Making that a bar to opening an RfC just looks like an attempt to punish someone for not contributing to the original RfC by proceeding as if consensus is different from what it really is.  (But I'll admit I'm having trouble envisioning why someone who apparently cares so much would deliberately not participate in an RfC, so maybe I'm not seeing the issue clearly).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Another situation in which we see repeat RFCs is if the original(s) didn't come to a clear conclusion. Sometimes people would rather take a break and try again later instead of extending a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the part specifically that bewilders me—how they've gone about it, rather than their disagreement with the consensus of the first RfC. Had they participated in that one, which was active for two months, when clearly invited to do so, their points of view would've been taken on board and discussed at length. And amongst an eventual five-editor consensus with no dissent, we did discuss at length. I'm not saying RfCs shouldn't be restarted, but restarting one after having ducked out of the first one just seems petulant. .. and now I'm sounding petulant about someone else being petulant. What can ya do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They might not know of any other way to go about it. Just because those of us with 10+ years experience and many tens of thousands of edits know better ways doesn't mean that everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, new development. What happens when this happens? I may have been around a decent while, but I haven't seen conduct like this before. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We do sometimes use RfCs to resolve intractable questions and everlasting disputes, and I think it's best if we don't decide that all RfCs can be relitigated a couple of months later. I suggest rules of thumb: (1) If there was an RfC in the last six months you should talk to the closer of that RfC before listing a fresh one, and (2) If they say no you should use the close challenge procedure rather than listing a fresh one, and (3) If the RfC was listed at WP:CENT and closed with consensus for a particular outcome, you shouldn't ask the same question for a year, unless something substantive has changed such as the publication of an important new source.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that even when ArbCom has (very rarely) declared that an RFC's result will be temporarily binding, they say that's for six months (or maybe a whole year once). I don't think that this unusual and extreme event should be taken as the ideal for everyday RFCs.  The person opening the second RFC sometimes is completely unaware of the first.  Even when they are fully aware, sometimes it takes a different question to resolve the dispute.  Consider Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4 and Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 7  Between the summary of the first and the opening of the second wasn't even three weeks – but the outcome has been respected ever since. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I was participating in that RfC, then for several reasons, I would advocate using the picture of the lady with her clothes on. So the second close was "right", in my view.  It's not needful for Pregnancy to open with a photo of a woman's nipples.  From my perspective, repeating that RfC corrected an error.
 * Nevertheless, I'm personally a bit revolted by that. I do recognize that it was way back in 2011 when things were different.  But Power Users Overrule Community: Doc James Gets Jimbo Wales to Reverse RfC would make an unpleasant Signpost headline.  Squicky, shouldn't happen, and I wish it never did.  I'm reminded of the occasion when the community reached a decision to remove "Verifiability, not truth" from WP:V and bloody SlimVirgin actually reverted that decision and actually reopened the whole discussion.  I'm sure she felt perfectly justified, and I'm sure Doc James and Jimbo Wales did in the discussion we're considering, but the fact that power users feel justified doesn't make their behaviour okay.
 * RfCs are made of humans and humans make mistakes, so of course there must be a way to correct RfCs when they're wrong. But the purpose of an RfC is to resolve a question so we can move on.  RfCs can't do their job if we put an easy back door into every decision we make.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it's not "an easy back door"; it's long-standing policy that Consensus can change – at any time, including shortly after a previous RFC concluded (assuming it has a conclusion; the first at Talk:Pregnancy concluded with no consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That certainly is policy, and it's one of our best policies! Succinct as well as clear.  My position has all four feet on its second sentence.
 * There's a tension. On the one hand we have to make sure we can correct a mistake, but on the other hand some Wikipedians get quite stuck on a point, and want to repeat discussions until they reach the "right" outcome.
 * For an example of the latter, consider the RfC on who won the Battle of Chawinda?. When an editor approached me to challenge that outcome, I treated it as a close review (here).  Imagine if he had received advice that he can just start a fresh RfC, though.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Revert it. It is utterly inappropriate to remove other contributors comments, and making substantive changes to the wording of an RfC after it has been responded to is likewise unacceptable.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What Grumpy said; and if they object, direct them to WP:TPO. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The editor has fixed the mistake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quite. They've still entirely re-factored their original RfC statement: . Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that means that it now complies with WP:RFCBRIEF. (The original version didn't.)  Changing the "question" after people have started commenting can be a problem, but with the original one being several hundred words long, we're going to have a problem one way or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that the original statement was straight to the point, also both neutral and brief; whereas the change of RfC question had on the listing entry. Significantly less brief, decidedly not neutral, and much more opaque - it begins with I understand this change was caused by ..., with no indication what "this change" might be, and you need to wade through five sentences before you reach the actual request. Notifying  to ensure that they are aware of this discussion. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The original statement was hundreds of words long. The one-sentence question was my temporary fix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC formatting help
I don't know if I did this right; was I supposed to sign ? Will the wikilink foil the bot? Can someone fix if necessary? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia, it looks like it's working now. The bot needs the date/time from a signature but does not require any individual's username.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks; so I could have just timestamped it I guess. Oh, well ... thx again. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can remove your name from it, if you want. (The bot will update the listings to match, usually within 15 minutes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Within one hour - Legobot normally runs its RfC task at xx:01. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about RfC sections
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)


 * 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)
 * @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)
 * 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)


 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Can you quote and link when I insulted you? Thanks. Thinker78  (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

Communication feedback noticeboard
There is a discussion at Village pump (proposals) that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


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

Proposed new noticeboard for closing summary reviews
Please see Village pump (policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting RfCs
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</b> T/C 10:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)

RfC whilst relevant AfDs are running
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)


 * 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)
 * Understood, thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

FRS bot speed
I've made one of my periodic runs through Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines again, and I found (as usual) a lot of inappropriate listings. Bots/Requests for approval/Yapperbot is set to pick up new listings once an hour, which means that people who sign up Feedback request service and similar categories get a lot of irrelevant notifications. Since the bot runs every hour, preventing that would require someone to check and correct the listings once an hour, which is unreasonable.

I wonder what you would all think, therefore, about asking Naypta to have the bot run less frequently. RFCs usually run for several weeks, so a delay of even a full day should make no real difference to the outcome. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not following you. How would running once a day improve the situation?  Is someone going to check and correct the listings each time they update, or are we just talking about the people who are invited to comment finding that the request is off-topic and recategorizing it?  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the bot runs once an hour, we have, on average, 30 minutes to notice and correct a problem before incorrect notices are distributed.
 * If the bot runs once a day, we will have, on average, 12 hours to notice and correct a problem before incorrect notices are distributed.
 * I'm not sure that anyone is frequently checking all the RFCs, but editors do notice and fix individual problems as they appear (e.g., on a page that is already in their watchlists). IMO, even if the problem is something as simple as the formatting limitations for an RFC, it would be better to send correct notices than incorrect notices, and a delay of some hours on a multi-week process would be worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have all of the RfC listing pages on my watchlist, so I notice when new RfCs are added by Legobot. I check every new entry as I reach it on my watchlist, but not necessarily within the hour or even within the day, because I work 5 days a week. Among the things that I check for include objective criteria mainly concerning technical aspecta:
 * that Requests for comment/Unsorted remains empty
 * that the listing entry is non-blank
 * that the listing entry is not corrupt
 * the link in the entry goes to the actual RfC itself - this detects (i) cases where two RfCs (not necessarily on the same page) have the same rfcid (usually because WP:RFC was ignored) and (ii) cases where an ongoing rfc is cutpasted from one page to another without resetting the rfcid
 * If one or more of these fails, I normally edit the RfC to fix the problem directly.
 * There are also some subjective criteria, if all the above succeed:
 * was WP:RFCBEFORE applied?
 * was WP:RFCNOT violated?
 * is the statement neutral and brief?
 * If one of these fails, I may leave a note in the RfC's discussion, asking the originator to fix it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I made these fixes yesterday: WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you spot an RfC listed on an inappropriate page (such as an article content discussion listed at WP:RFC/POLICY) and you remove the improper param (such as policy), this presently needs to be done in the 29-minute window between Legobot listing the RfC and Yapperbot sending out the FRS message. What that removal won't do is remove the entry from WP:RFC/POLICY. If the removal is delayed, Yapperbot won't revoke the message it previously sent out. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't Legobot update the RFC listings? I thought it did (years ago, anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Short answer: if you examine the Legobot source, you will see that there is nothing to delete table rows. Once an RfC category has been associated with an rfcid, that association is permanent.
 * Long answere: if you add an RfC category param to an ongoing RfC that is already listed under another RfC cat, Legobot will add an entry to the listing page for the new cat. If you remove an RfC category param from an ongoing RfC that is presently listed under that RfC cat, Legobot will not remove the entry from the listing page for that cat. As to why: that is a question for Legoktm. The upshot of this is that if you have an RfC listed on the wrong list, the only way of getting it off that list whilst keeping the RfC open is to trick Legobot into thinking that the RfC has been closed - this is done by removing the rfcid param at the same time that you remove the incorrect RfC category. This forces Legobot to issue a new rfcid, and since the old rfcid is no longer used in a tag, Legobot removes the listing entries. It then creates new listing entries for the new rfcid. The downside to that is that FRS subscribers may be re-messaged, and I have had complaints in the past (yes, complaints to me even though I am nothing to do with the FRS system) from people who were messaged twice about the same RfC. It was the same text, but the rfcids differed so as far as the FRS system was concerned they were different RfCs. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And if you take them out manually, it promptly re-adds them. (I checked.)  I suppose that this means that 'the table' isn't stored on wiki.  Well, it's suboptimal, but I doubt that it will get fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To the original q: Yapperbot has been sending out the FRS messages since 23 May 2020. Before that, they were sent out by Legobot, which seems to have ceased on 15 December 2019. When it was running the FRS job, Legobot sent out the FRS messages in batches, once a day, beginning at 04:20 UTC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * WRT the idea of reducing the bot to run once a day, I see only upsides.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering all the above, I am for once a day.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that once a day makes sense. What's more important is that Yapperbot has stopped running entirely as a result of the grid engine shutdown, and it's operator has been de-fact retired since August 2020. I smell Deja Vu here. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting sections
The WP:RFC does not encourage separate sections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===, because it's usually overkill, and even when it's not, it tends to lead to more "voting" and less "commenting" behavior.

I've been wondering recently about whether we should encourage people to put discussion first, and the voting section afterwards. In particular, I think this would reduce the number of people who vote without even seeing any of the discussion, some of which could be important to them deciding how to vote. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is worth a try on the next large (ish) RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've tried this order at Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way, but (a) there are no responses yet and (b) I'm not sure that it's a 'typical' RFC, so I wouldn't want to extrapolate the response too far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik X
Not experienced in Rfc's, advice or edits much appreciated. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I've changed the categories (style/naming is for proposed changes to pages like Article titles and Manual of Style), and otherwise it looks like you did fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * thankyou! EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Questions regarding if there is a closed RfC on a specific topic of an article...
Can somebody start up an RfC of the same topic if consensus still hasn't been reached? How long after the first RfC was closed is an appropriate amount of time to do that?

If anyone has answers to those questions, those would be good to add to the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No community consensus that I'm aware of, and Wikipedia generally dislikes bright lines. The answer to the second question depends on who you ask. The answer to Can somebody start up an RfC of the same topic if consensus still hasn't been reached? is a clear yes; if consensus can change, certainly "no consensus" can change. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually, it's a good idea to wait a few months (perhaps six months, or even a year) before trying again. However, we have had back-to-back RFCs in the past, and sometimes the second (or third) one solves the problem.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, because there's some terminology confusion around and your wording is a little odd: Are you talking about an RfC discussion that was closed with a finding of no consensus, or a discussion that petered out with no apparent consensus and was never closed? (RfCs themselves don't close -- discussions do.  But RfCs do end).  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC for using Module:Sports_table for Rugby Union tables
Hi, I was going to open an RfC to get community input on using Module:Sports table with the rugby style for Rugby Union tables, but thought I should check here first. I started a thread at WikiProject Rugby, but got limited response, with a few editors expressing a desire for "sports table" and one editor disagreeing. Should I open an RfC, or do I already have enough input to decide the issue with the editors who have already commented. I don't want to waste time with an RfC if there is no reason for one. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Frietjes, the conversation there suggests that the problem is primarily with one user's behavior, and that you should try ANI first. However, I understand that you might be reluctant to approach that noticeboard without a quick and easy way for busy folks at ANI to determine what the consensus was.
 * To my way of thinking, the bottom line is that you have a dispute (even if you think it shouldn't be happening), and you therefore need Dispute resolution (or which an RFC is a valid and relevant option). Have you thought about how you'd like to word the RFC question?  For example, about a single page, a small group, or in general? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion
There needs to be stronger wording to emphasize that before an RfC is initiated (except for proposed policy/sitewide changes), there must have been extensive discussion with multiple participants, a reasonable timespan, and no consensus. WP:RFCBEFORE currently says, which comes across as more of a suggestion than a requirement. WP:ANI has a large red box emphasizing that notifying involved editors is required; WP:MR says in bold that editors must discuss with the closer before a move review. I feel like a similar level of emphasis is warranted here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, @InfiniteNexus. I mostly agree with you in the general case, but RFCs cover a lot of discussion types.  There are a few things that pretty much have to be handled as an RFC (e.g., if you're making a WP:PROPOSAL), and in some situations, editors are starting an RFC because they have no realistic hope of getting responses otherwise (e.g., on a new or under-watched page). Starting a discussion on the talk page before starting an RFC might not be particularly helpful in some cases.
 * The goal behind the RFCBEFORE language is mostly to discourage the kind of editor who jumps to an RFC over every little thing. If an ordinary, un-advertised chat on the talk page can answer a question or resolve a problem, then that's best.  I think it's the same motivation at MR:  don't bother everyone else with a "heavy" process when a quick little chat might be able to take care of it all.
 * (BTW, since the Feedback request service has been broken for weeks, I'm not sure that starting an RFC is a particularly effective way to get other people involved in a discussion right now. If there are any RFCs that particularly interest you, I recommend looking at Requests for comment.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I specifically wrote above . I am well aware that in those cases, it is perfectly acceptable to just go for it, but in most cases, it is not appropriate for editors to jump the gun and treat RfCs as a solution to everything. I say that because many times when I see an RfC pop up, there has only been a preceding one-day-old discussion with two participants and three comments. Also, if editors wish to solicit feedback, an RfC is not appropriate; they should either be BOLD, try WP:3O, or ask a WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not always possible. Look at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources/Archive 1, which is an RFC I started in 2016.  I needed information before editing any further, so I couldn't be bold; there was no dispute or even anyone else talking to me, so 3O is irrelevant; there's no WikiProject to ask.  Now what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that was an RfC? Because it sure doesn't look like it. What I would have done, and looks like what you ended up doing, was leave a message on a relevant project-namespace page, such as Wikipedia talk:Independent sources. No reply from anyone? Leave messages elsewhere, like relevant policy pages. Or, as a last resort, a Village pump. An RfC would have definitely been not appropriate in that scenario. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an RFC; you can see the RFC tag in the page history.
 * I'm not sure why you think that an RFC is an inappropriate thing to do when an editor is "requesting" actual "comments". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Example: Talk:List of highest-grossing live-action/animated films. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this happens a lot. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something stronger like: Editors are expected to discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Make a reasonable attempt to resolve issues prior to starting an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've mocked up the following to replace the text before the bulleted list at WP:RFCBEFORE:
 * I would also like to add "if an RfC is initiated prematurely without adequate prior discussion, it will be speedily closed", but that doesn't describe the current practice, so I don't know if others would support that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, I don't think this is true. This isn't how RFC works.  More importantly, this isn't how humans work.  Sometimes it's not appropriate to wait "for a significant period of time" before starting an RFC, because you're letting a serious problem get worse while you wait for the inevitable.  Sometimes the main problem is that you have been unable to get that "input from multiple editors" (or at least from more than two others).  Sometimes you look at a problem and realize that what's needed is to talk to the broader community instead of chatting with the fanboys who hang out on that particular talk page.  Sometimes, in fact, what we need is to get the RFC started as soon as possible.
 * If you wanted a rule that I think would reflect reality, it would probably say something like "Every editor is entitled to screw up one RFC a year. If you make a habit of it, though, someone will come talk to you, and there's a teeny tiny chance that you'll end up with a TBAN." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All of your "sometimes" scenarios can be answered with this: WP:IAR. If there is a situation where a special exception is warranted, then ignore RFCBEFORE. But in the vast majority of cases, it is not appropriate for an editor to disagree with another editor, complain about it on the talk page, receive a response they don't like, and then jump straight to an RfC. Or, using the RfC Redrose64 linked as an example, have a question about an article and jump straight to an RfC rather than making a regular post or asking a WikiProject/Village pump (which is what should have happened). InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The stronger the wording, the harder it is to get people (especially newer editors) to accept IAR.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else have any thoughts on this proposed wording? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Does anybody else have any thoughts on this proposed wording? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is RfC necessary here?
Is RfCs for this discussion? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 17:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not at this stage. It's a dispute between two editors and you've only just asked for a third opinion.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * User:S Marshall, I'm sorry, I fixed the link, I meant about this discussion. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are actually two questions there:
 * Should we have a unified symbol for Islam that is used on all relevant pages/templates across Wikipedia?
 * If so, should that unified symbol be the Star and crescent symbol, or should it be the Allah word in Arabic script, or something else (e.g., the Shahada)?
 * I suggest that you limit the first to content spaces (e.g., articles and portals, but not WikiProject Islam). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Text added to RFCNOT
I've added the following text to WP:RFCNOT, posting it here for transparency. I believe it accurately describes current practice, and clarifies what that section was originally intended for:

Ordinarily, the types of routine discussions below have their own processes which should be followed. In cases where the normal process has failed to produce a consensus, has been especially contentious, or may have a widespread impact, it might be suited for an RfC to attract wider input. RfC tags should also not be added to a discussion that is already taking place in one of these venues.

Editors should note that filing an RfC without first attempting to use the routine processes, or as an attempt to subvert a consensus they don't like, might be seen as gaming the system. Similarly, attempts to force an RfC to be shut down early (or persuade the creator to withdraw) without strong evidence that it is invalid or defective is also strongly discouraged, and can be seen as disruptive.

<span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This seems like a lot of words to be adding. The more words we put on the page, the less people will read.  What problem are you trying to solve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue that prompted this was the absolute mess over the legitimacy of an RfC for Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles, as well as the close challenge at WP:AN. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the sense is correct. If no one beats me to it, I'll get the chance to revise it to say the same thing in about half as many words tomorrow.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think it needs to be much shorter, but I think there is some value in saying that RFCs aren't actually banned from these discussions.  (Our original point was more like "Look, there's a purpose-built process ideally suited for your routine WP:RM"; the idea that editors are banned from using RFCs when they really need widespread input from the community has never cross my mind.)
 * @The Wordsmith, thank you for being willing to read through of text to summarize that discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm partial to as a measurement of discussion page size. But yes, the original thread that created WP:RFCNOT was a little different from the text that ended up being written, so I'm trying to clarify. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the good faith addition until language is decided, it seems the explanation which was added is outside the bounds of the RfC closes as well as saying that other requirements need to be fulfilled (remember, the RfC was undertaken after one 2023 RM at NFL Draft that ended as no-consensus with no move review following). So we can jump from "no consensus" anywhere straight to an RfC which, without the requirement of notifying the pages, would move titles up-to-now reserved for 1) an RM, then 2) a move review. In the newest case, scores of unnotified-but-then-changed pages occurred without an RM or a move review of the 2023 RM. Seems like any added language should be worked out before the wording is included and not before or during a discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So we can jump from "no consensus" anywhere straight to an RfC: Yes, that's how RFCs work.  If you can't get consensus with a local discussion, then start an RFC and see if adding some uninvolved editors would help.
 * An Appeal to consequences (i.e., that if editors are able to reach a consensus, some pages will get moved) is kind of the point of finding consensus, no? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's out my hands. But, I think any changes made here, that (even remotely) suggests an RFC can overturn or bypass an RM, would render the RM process ineffective. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's either true or intended. I don't think that editors should be banned from adding an RFC tag in addition to following the RM discussion.
 * Also, it'd be self-contradictory to say that editors can use the RFC process to change policies and guidelines, including the Article titles policy and any of the naming convention guidelines – and thus set in motion a change to the titles of thousands of pages – but they can't use an RFC to discuss changing page titles, because changing page titles is exclusively WP:OWNED by the RM process. There are rare circumstances in which doing both may be appropriate.
 * In the meantime, I note that WP:RM says "Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace." Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles certainly counts as "other pages in Project namespace". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the history. Was the NFL Draft RM result (held in 2023) challenged at WP:AN? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt that it's worth you checking, because it doesn't matter. If a prior discussion (of any kind, on any page, using any process) didn't reach consensus, or if any editor believes that consensus has changed since then, then any editor is entitled to start a new discussion.  Neither RFCs nor RMs result in binding decisions (except in those rare occasions when ArbCom puts a temporary moratorium on re-discussing it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Either an RM review should occur, if one opposes an RM result or (after at least twelve months) another RM on the same page should be opened. Otherwise, the RM process is potentially rendered ineffective or irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the "after at least twelve months" bit? I've never seen such a rule.
 * Also, when was the last time you saw RM used for a decision that could affect more than a hundred articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RMs should occur with as few as possible pages involved. PS - We're not going to agree on this & circular discussions lead to nowhere. So, best to let other give their input. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that RM is best suited for small numbers of pages. The obvious obverse of that believe is that I agree that RM is not best suited for discussions affecting hundreds of pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Belt-and-suspenders is not an improvement. RFCNOT processes like requested moves are formalized and publicized, not just random local talk page threads. They have well-known centralized noticeboards (i.e. WP:RM, WP:AFD, WP:RFD, etc. themselves), automated article alerts with subscriptions by just about every WikiProject, and banners visible on affected pages. RFC tagging on top of this does not improve it; more is not better. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

PS - I've contacted WP:RM about this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

AFD, RFD, RM, and other RFCNOT processes are complementary to RfCs in their proper roles, not merely an overlapping pair of channels for litigation and relitigation. Centralized RfCs give generalized guidance on a broad question, and other processes decide ultimate outcomes of articles taking individualized circumstances into account.

No-consensus and contentiousness are not sufficient to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary. No consensus is a normal outcome of AFD, RFD, RM, and other discussions, not a failure. Controversy is a dime a dozen. Widespread impact, beyond the practical limits of RFCNOT's structured processes, is required. At a minimum, a question is broad enough only if a large bundled discussion about the same question is impossible due to WP:TRAINWRECK, yet one-by-one discussions would flood the venue. (WP:LUGSTUBS is an example.) It's an and between all these conditions, not an or. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think that trainwrecks are the only possibility. Consider:
 * You can have an RFC to change the WP:LOWERCASE policy to give an example of NFL drafts as an example of correct use of your preferred case. Result:  Potentially, several hundred pages get moved.
 * But allegedly: You can't have an RFC to decide to move those same pages, unless some of them would get moved and others wouldn't (a "trainwreck")?
 * That doesn't make any sense. I suggest that when you are already doing something extraordinary (discussing whether to change the capitalization on hundreds of pages at once), then using an extraordinary process is permissible.  A move that could affect hundreds of pages, and that has already been discussed multiple times in the past, is a good candidate for an RFC that got comments from 50 editors, rather than the five or ten that RM normally elicits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The 2023 2024 NFL Draft discussion had approx. 25 participants (on an unscientific count), was closed as no consensus, and no move review was held. Before that there was a much less attended 2016 RM at a little-read page. Those were the only two "multiple times in the past", and the no consensus RM was not poorly attended. None of your arguments take WP:RFCNOT into account, which has been the determinative wording. It directs that the issue could hold a third RM but that the titling could not be done by an RfC. Yet it was, two closers have moved the goalposts (to coin a phrase), and if WP:RFCNOT's language is allowed to be changed per those discussions then it is a WP:IAR decision. So let's call it what it is and ascertain if this entire episode improves and maintains Wikipedia, the criteria for an IAR. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:2024 NFL draft has 82 comments from 24 accounts, including the closing summary. If you turn on "Discussion tools" in Special:Preferences then it'll count everyone for you.  :-)
 * We are talking about what RFCNOT ought to say. It is therefore not especially helpful to treat the current wording of RFCNOT as some sort of statute that needs to be carefully adhered to.  The real policy (and this page isn't even a guideline) is what editors actually do and accept, not what words we wrote down in an attempt to describe our usual practices and best advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The recent NFL draft RfC was an exception and not the norm. Editors should not get WP:POINTY and start RfCing any and every failed RM. The question is whether it's worthwhile to update this WP:INFOPAGE at WP:RFCNOT and provide future guidance for other similar—but rare—cases? Or do we leave it to common sense for the community to apply the existing policies WP:NOTBURO amd, as was the consensus at this recent RfC?—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree: Editors should not...start RfCing any and every failed RM – or even 10% of them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Redraft

 * How's that?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure on the requirement to first have consensus to hold an RfC to establish consensus; that doesn't seem to be how things typically happen. RfCs generally have a presumption of legitimacy, unless there's a strong consensus otherwise. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I intended to prevent a lone editor from deciding to start a RFC instead of an RM.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think The Wordsmith is right. We don't generally have a problem with this, so creating rules about it is WP:CREEPY, and it may obstruct reasonable solutions.
 * I'm also not sure that we should prohibit RFC tags in combination. This is rare, but I think it happens about once a year or so, and it's not always a bad idea.  For example, if a question can't be resolved during a GA review, it might be suitable for an RFC, and it might make more sense to "physically" place it in the GA subpage.  Similarly, there's an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists right now.  It's simultaneously "about" a single page, and 367 pages, and FL criteria.  It would be easy for an editor to lodge procedural objections by claiming it's "using a different process".  Even though (in this particular instance) it's not intended to be covered (because this is a pre-nomination discussion, rather than a discussion while a nom is pending), this introduces the opportunity to wikilawyer over whether or not the discussion can be advertised.  At best, it will be a distraction; at worst, we'll have to first find consensus to determine whether the discussion is allowed to happen.
 * (Also, "full RFC" may be confusing, by making people wonder what a "partial" one is.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could be shortened to On rare occasions, a specialist process isn't the right approach and editors might decide to use RFC instead. When this happens, open an RFC in the normal way. I do think keeping the last sentence about not adding tags to an existing discussion is good, that's within the spirit of the original reason RFCNOT was written. In your GA review example, an RFC might be better off on the article talkpage or subpage rather than directly added to the GAR itself. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether to add an RFC tag to an existing discussion vs to start a new section is something that should be decided case-by-case.
 * I wonder whether it would be sufficient to just say "On rare occasions, a specialist process isn't the right approach and editors might decide to start an RFC". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * IMHO, it's regrettable that the community has chosen to accept the move of NFL Draft (and related pages) to NFL draft (and related pages) via RFC, bypassing the RM process & overturning the last RM result on that page. But they have & so be it. My only concern here, is that it doesn't become a precedent (i.e. using an RFC to bypass the RM process or overturn an RM result) for other editors to follow. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh… I don’t see much difference between RM and RFC… the RM process is useful, but ultimately it is simply a version of RFC specifically focused on page moves. Same with AFD… that is just a version of RFC specifically focused on whether to delete. The point is to have community input on the question. What bureaucracy we use to ASK the question is secondary. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Tightened:


 * Better?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that this may be (mis)understood as encouraging discussion forks. It would be better to have an RM with an RFC tag inside it (or the other way around) than to have an RM in one section and an RFC in the next section – or, worse, on a different page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that this may be (mis)understood as encouraging discussion fork: The WP:FORUMSHOP policy already discourages simulataneous discussions on the same topic. —Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * See also Content forks/Internal.
 * The problem is that if WP:RFC directly tells editors that when they "decide to use RFC", they should "start an RFC in the normal way" and definitely "do not add RFC tags to a pre-existing discussion", some of them are going to think that the official directions are telling them that they really ought to abandon the existing discussion in favor of a brand-new RFC, no matter what other pages may or may not say about that behavior as a general practice for everyday, non-RFC-related editing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DISCUSSFORK says: WP:RFCBEFORE expects that other options have already been tried:  They shouldn't "abandon" an ongoing discussion, but an RfC is fair if it has reached an impasse. —Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, and the question here is whether, if you start with (e.g.):
 * ==Requested move: Foo to bar==
 * and you decide that an RFC would be helpful, should you choose
 * ===RFC about how to make this consistent across hundreds of pages=== (as part of the original ==Requested move: Foo to bar==)
 * or
 * ==RFC about hundreds of article titles== (separated, perhaps on a different page).
 * I believe that "Please do not add RFC tags to a pre-existing discussion that uses a different process" will be interpreted (especially by, but not exclusively by, editors who believe that their side will "lose") as "You aren't allowed to have an RFC as part of the original discussion". Of course, the reason the present discussion exists is because some editors were upset because someone started a separate discussion at the Village Pump.  The net result would be that editors would believe you can have an RFC neither as part of the original discussion, nor separated from it.  This is not a desirable outcome.  The rules should never be written in ways that would lead editors to believe that any content-related subject is excluded from the RFC advertising process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The rules should never be written in ways that would lead editors to believe that any content-related subject is excluded from the RFC advertising process This is the issue that landed us here in the first place. I agree that editors might interpret this language like that. Maybe changing it to inside a pre-existing discussion would clarify that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you want to ban editors from starting a ===RFC about how to make this consistent across hundreds of pages=== (as part of the original ==Requested move: Foo to bar==)?  We could, but we can predict that it will produce complaints about FORUMSHOPPING, especially when the separated, context-hiding subsequent RFC is started by someone who thinks he's "losing" the original discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RM generally stays open for a week or so, RfC usually for 30 days. When this section was originally created, it was because a few editors misunderstood and tried adding an RfC inside of an AFD, which disrupts the process. I don't think we have the power here to ban editors from doing anything, we're just trying to describe the current practice as accurately as we can. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Another redraft

 * How's this?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As the person who first responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 16 - and indeed, the person who made the revert mentioned in the original post there, I'd like to say that the original point of RFCNOT was not to discourage but to forbid the use of RfCs where an established process exists. So I oppose the text seldom, but not. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I can see no way to reconcile your position with WAID's then.  :(—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to see an RFC inside an AFD page, either. But if it's a discussion that you could reasonably have at a Village pump or noticeboard (e.g., "Do you think I have enough sources to turn this r with possibilities redirect into a decent article?" or "I'm thinking about re-organizing some articles to align with the division of this multinational company.  This could involve re-structuring the category tree, and...") then I think it should be possible to have an RFC on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There may well be something I'm missing. You seem to be in favour of allowing RFCs in RMs, but disallowing them in AfD.  Have I understood you right?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. In practice, an individual AFD won't expand to dozens or hundreds of articles.  An RM could (and has done).  An RM, like an RFC, is a normal, consensus-driven talk-page discussion with some additional mechanisms to support advertising and summarizing the discussion.  The results are not constrained to specific options.  An RFC should be a possibility in any ordinary, consensus-driven discussion.
 * Other processes (e.g., peer review) are not. Peer review is kind of "one person's opinion"; their comments might inspire an RFC, but "Please change Joe's mind because I don't like his advice" isn't really a sensible RFC question .  AFDs aren't normal talk-page discussions; the result will be keep/merge/delete.  The other XFDs have more scope for creative compromise as a result of discussion, but we haven't needed RFC for them, and when the scope expands to an RFC-level question, we usually close the XFD and start a new discussion (e.g., at the Village pump) instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the main situations we would permit RfCs in place of specialized processes are when a proposal affects a large number of pages--including future pages in some category--but isn't intended to add to/change the text of P&Gs per se (such as when establishing a convention for a particular topic), when the normal processes have repeatedly resulted in no consensus (and consensus for something is desired), and when it's clear broader community input is needed to reach a P&G-compliant outcome. There's plenty of precedent for each of these scenarios, so I prefer this wording acknowledging that our recommendation to use specialized processes isn't absolute. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. A discussion about renaming multiple pages according to a common theme isn't really an RM matter (and I've never seen one that was carried out as an RM), it's a matter of agreeing a naming convention. Once that is agreed (which may well be an RfC matter), you then proceed to moving pages within its scope but whose names don't fit the agreed convention. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another thing that led up to the original RFCNOT proposal was the use of as an alternative to  or  - as a notice placed on another page directing people to the real discussion that was occurring elsewhere. On that note, this RfC at VPT must be the oddest RfC that I've seen in some years. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, he's requesting comments, so I guess it's a request for comments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things where we clearly didn't intend for it to be used that way, but reading the text plainly without the Wiki-cultural context I can see how someone would interpret it that way (much like this current thread). <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The original intent probably did include this (soliciting comments on a technical question). A similar request for technical feedback was posted a month after RFC was created (i.e., in 2004). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Would this be appropriate?
The discussion at Talk:Vasa (ship) now has closely related discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. The editor who made that post has not mentioned the Vasa (ship) RfC. I am not clear whether or not it would be appropriate to mention the RfC at the discussion at the Citing sources talk page. With the growing body of support at Citing sources for my own point of view, I wish to avoid any suggestion of canvassing or other improper behaviour. Yet it seems to be unhelpful for the discussion to be going on in two places. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * We try very hard to avoid a WP:TALKFORK situation. The usual way to do this is to leave a brief note in both discussions to say something like "Editors interested in this might also be interested in the related discussion at [link]."  If you are in an argument with someone (in either location), then you may prefer the please see template (which is "neutral" to the point of being uninformative); if accusations of WP:BLUDGEON have already appeared, then ping me and I'll post them for you.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, User:WhatamIdoing. Since I have had a number of accusations made about my actions, which in the spirit of non-confrontation I have largely ignored, if you were able to post the appropriate messages I think it might avoid, at the very least, a lot of hot air. You would no doubt form a quick opinion on whether the two threads are sufficiently related. Sorry to chicken out, but I think it is for the best. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is nobody participating in this RfC
Why is nobody participating in this RfC? Is something wrong with it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, an RfC held at a WikiProject forum isn't ideal - it lends itself to lower participation and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A Village Pump might be better for that in the future - although it's not too late to move it now. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any of that is true. A local consensus is what happens when a group of editors declare "their" articles exempt from some community-wide rule.  RFCs are the antidote to a local consensus, because an RFC advertises the local discussion to the whole community.  People getting those messages don't care (or necessarily even notice) what page it's on.
 * @BilledMammal, this all happened about a decade before your first edit, but the problems with local consensus came to a head in 2009 and early 2010. We had an RFC that ultimately resulted in both clarifying the Consensus policy and creating WP:ADVICEPAGE.  The key discussion that affirmed the undesirability of small groups of editors exempting their content from the general rules was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC – an RFC that started on the WikiProject's talk page.
 * @Super ninja2, have you followed the steps for publicizing the discussion at Requests for comment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing editors are staying away because it's a Muslim issue and religious crazies are unappealing to everyone else. Why would I posit my opinion in that RfC when I see you and others arguing about it? I only provide my 2 cents when the bar to entry is zero.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  20:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Chris, your comment unfairly implies that Muslims are "religious crazies".
 * Ten people have been individually notified about its existence. There are 60 on that list at the moment, so we could re-run it.  But given that there is a discussion on the same subject, with nine people, in the section immediately above it, I'm not sure why it's in a new section.  The RFC tag could have been added at the top of the existing one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman, you either show respect to your peers or I will have to notify ANI about it. Disrespectful. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 01:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Chris is something of a frequent flyer at ANI; I'm sure he's not really concerned about another discussion there.
 * In my experience he doesn't necessarily intend to be disrespectful. The problem with being blunt, especially when we can't tell what his tone of voice is or see his body language, is that it often results in misunderstandings that feel very personal to the people on the other end (e.g., to the ~six out of seven people in the world who subscribe to a religion and might think he meant all religious people have mental health problems, or to the one in seven who are Muslim specifically and might think he meant that all Muslims have mental health problems).  People's sensitivities are not always obvious to others, so it's best not to use this sort of language.  It'd be much better to say something like "I'm guessing editors are staying away because it's a question about Islam and not everyone feels comfortable joining a discussion on religion."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Whether he is a frequent flyer there or not, that is no excuse to ignore the rules and bypass the policies. Rules are applied on all editors equally and must be adhered by all of them with no exception to those who are frequent flyers on ANI. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 02:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not very kind there and I apologize for having offended. I stay away from that discussion for the same reason I stay away from MoS arguments: I don't feel I can offer an opinion without being inundated by folks on either side.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, an RfC on a WikiProjects page encourages participation from members of that Wikiproject and discourages participation from non-members. In other words, it drives down overall participation, and has WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you ever felt inhibited from participating in an RFC because of the page it was located on? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what BilledMammal means is just that people who participate in that Wikiproject are more likely to know about it, which can cause selection bias issues - while many people do read RFC/ALL many people arrive on RFCs because it was held on a page they visit. There are definitely some situations where this would make me object to an RFC whose outcome could have been biased by that, especially if there was a more obvious place to hold it - for example, an RFC on the reliability for a WP:BIASED source on the page of the wikiproject for an ideology it is biased for or against, when RSN is a much more obvious and neutral place to hold such an RFC. I obviously wouldn't say that RFCs can never be held on wikiprojects; they're often held there for less controversial things. But selection bias based on where an RFC is held is a reasonable objection if there was a more obvious place to hold it, and the possibility of those objections potentially weakens its impact, making it a poor choice for clearly-controversial and high-impact RFCs. As an example, there's nothing wrong with determining what sources are good for uncontroversial statements about videogames on the videogame wikiproject, but I would consider decisions reached there to have less weight and significance than ones reached on WP:RSN, which has a wider and more general audience, and often wouldn't consider a consensus that a source is reliable reached there to be enough to guarantee that it can be used for more controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or WP:BLP-sensitive statements. That said, in this case the more serious problem is probably just that fewer people knowing about the RFC due to it being held in a relatively obscure has resulted in nonexistent participation rather than a potential bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He said it drives down overall participation. What you're describing would drive participation up (all the people from the Feedback request service [which seems to be more popular than the RFC listing pages these days] plus the people watching that page [true for any page]).
 * As for RSN being better than WikiProject Video games, it is true that the WikiProject's talk page gets about 25% the page views, but it's also true that they are more likely to know what they're talking about if the question is about which sources are reliable for video games. They've put a lot of work into that particular question.  Whether a source is reliable depends on the WP:RSCONTEXT, so no discussion, about any source, discussed anywhere, by any number of editors, is "enough to guarantee that it can be used for more controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or WP:BLP-sensitive statements".
 * On the point more relevant to this question, though, we have no evidence that the location of an RFC affects participation at all.
 * I've seen several editors making assertions about village pumps and noticeboards during the last few months, and I feel like we're developing this pattern:
 * 1: Nobody watches those pages, so an RFC there doesn't get enough participation and doesn't really count.
 * 2: What's your evidence that nobody participates in those RFCs?
 * 1: I just feel like they don't go to those obscure backwater pages.
 * 2: Times that 100 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter lists a whole lot of highly attended RFCs, and the only ones happening on a village pump were complaining about the WMF.  Times that 200 Wikipedians supported a policy change and Times that 200 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter don't have any discussions at village pumps or noticeboards either.  Ditto forTimes that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something, although it has one of those obscure, unnoticeable WikiProject pages that somehow managed to get 900(!) editors to vote on it.
 * 1: I still feel like RFCs at RSN get more participation.
 * 2: A quick look in RSN's archives indicates that last four RFCs there got 6, 22, 28, and 3 (yes, three) editors involved.  That's about average, e.g., compared to the oldest four at RFC/BIO today.  WikiProject Football is hosting an RFC right now with more than 30 editors participating so far.
 * 1: Look, you're trying to be all factual and mathy here, but what matters to me is that I don't feel like I have as fair a chance at intervening in a discussion if it's not on one of the pages that I personally check on a regular basis.
 * If you glance through my story and think that you might not really have any evidence behind your belief that the namespace mattes for RFC participation, then (a) I'd love to have the numbers, and (b) can I interest you in signing up for the Feedback request service, so you'll be personally notified of every RFC in your interest areas?
 * I really do want the numbers, if anyone's willing to slog through the archives. A year's worth of simple, basic descriptive statistics on every RFC would be an amazing resource for helping editors set appropriate expectations for how many comments/editors they can expect.  I suspect that the typical range is something like 5 to 20. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that’s because nobody has updated the lists; they’re missing the LUGSTUBS and probably many more. BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FRS is one method of finding out about new RfCs; there are others which also do not require you to have watchlisted the page where the RfC is actually being held. For instance, you can watchlist one or more of the pages listed at Template:Wikipedia RFC topics, such as Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy (don't bother watchlisting the three shown as "View all" unless you like reverting incorrect edits). Then there is article alerts see e.g. WikiProject Islam/Article alerts. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for this! Remsense  诉  15:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should put a list of ways to find out about RFCs on the main page, since many editors seem to believe that their primary method (e.g., watching a village pump page) is really the only option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal, please feel free to update the pages. LUGSTUBS had 130 participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would feel like I'm imposing the generic, classically Wikipedian take onto the conversation—i.e. that I would disagree with the use of an icon in such a manner—since I do not have any special insight into this specific use case. You can get that take from anyone! Remsense  诉  08:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would feel like I'm imposing the generic, classically Wikipedian take onto the conversation—i.e. that I would disagree with the use of an icon in such a manner—since I do not have any special insight into this specific use case. You can get that take from anyone! Remsense  诉  08:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC request for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation
Hello,

I started the subject Naming the tragic event in the articles head title on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force a few months ago, and was suggested to start up an RFC. Anyone wants to help me out? Thoughts? Thanks in advance

Sincerely, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Welcome to RFC, Sidney.Cortez. Do you want to start a new/separate discussion, or just bring more people into the existing one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello WhatamIdoing,
 * I don't know honestly. What's most constructive, do you think?
 * Thanks, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way works, but I lean very slightly towards a fresh start. Create a regular new section.  Add a sensible short question (i.e., not "Why don't we mention this" but something like "Shall we...?" or "Should the title for an aviation disaster...?") at the top.
 * The RFC tag goes above your question. For your RFC tag, you should pick one or more relevant article categories from Requests for comment, plus only the   category from among the project-wide ones (because you're asking about a change to article naming conventions, which is a style matter.  Specifically, this is not a "policy or guideline" question as far as the RFC categories are concerned).
 * You don't need to set up subsections or anything like that. If you want to explain in more detail, then add that explanation as a second comment (i.e., after your already-signed first comment, which is the RFC's official question).  For example, you might say something about the title Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 being less immediately informative (e.g., to people using search tools) than some other options, such as 2001 shootdown of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 or Loss of 2001 Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (or whatever options and explanations you think would be useful).
 * After that, I suggest reading Requests for comment and leaving a note on the main WikiProject talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft), at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, any articles where you know there's been a recent discussion about this subject, and on whichever other pages you think would be useful. Please see is an optional template you can use for posting these notes, if you prefer that style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE often ignored
In my experience, a large number of RFCs are frequently started after no discussion, or extremely minimal discussion. Is there a way to make WP:RFCBEFORE more prominent somehow?  Aza24  (talk)   00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some weeks ago I thought of adding a line in big text like Is your RfC really necessary? but didn't do it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A message like that would probably discourage the "wrong" editor. Thinking about the two editors who were running ~10 RFCs years ago, I'm sure that they strongly believed that their RFCs were really necessary.  Other editors did not disagree with them; they were invincibly convinced that they were right; therefore, an RFC was necessary to prove that they were right.  (The fact that they were frequently not proven right did not change their minds, but it did stop the edit warring.)
 * @Aza24, I find that complaints like this are frequently motivated from two places: One is a general, disinterested concern that the people who respond to RFCs are wasting their time by responding to such "obvious" questions.  The other is a more specific concern that a particular RFC is going to end up with the "wrong" result, whereas if the rest of the community hadn't been invited to join the conversation, then the "right" answer could have prevailed.  (See also the FAQ on people complaining about biased questions.)  One of these concerns seems to be more common that the other.  Which is yours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. RfC's are helpful--especially when one or a few editors are not following the WP:RS.  It's the only decent forum I know of to address a content dispute. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, it was prompted by JK Rowling-related talk page chaos; a discussion was taking place, and then a RFC suddenly appeared on a matter which had not even been discussed. It calls back to numerous times I've witnessed discussions talk place over a day or two, and certainly not concluded or proved stalemated—but an RFC appears anyways. Many times these RFCs are halted before a consensus arrives: a solution to me seems to make it clearer that discussion should take place first.  Aza24  (talk)   06:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hot-button articles tend to attract more than their share of RFCs, but I'm not sure that's always a bad thing.
 * I'm not sure that changing the instructions would help. Nobody reads the directions, and reasonable people could disagree about whether a discussion has concluded or reached a stalemate.  (For example, I tend to be a bit more optimistic about the chance of reaching a conclusion than many other editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to give my non-neutral opinion on the RfC that I started?
I started an RfC with a neutral statement. Can I give my opinion on the subject below my first statement and timestamp? ☆SuperNinja2☆  TALK!  22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may of course make a comment on the RfC; any editor may. It is only the RfC issue summary that must be neutral; it is of course not expected that comments in response to it will be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why a protected page blocks me
I added references and it seems like an automatic block. How do I get this to go into RfC? OhioMD (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You need to provide some more information about what you were trying to use as a reference if you expect others to be able to help you. URLs are usually on the blacklist for very good reasons though, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. Remsense  诉  03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @OhioMD, it would help if you could tell us the website you were trying to add. It may not let you post the link, but you can spell it out as "example dot com/page.html" if you need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Education about RFC mechanics
Twice in the last two days I've had to explain to editors that RFC tags are removed after 30 days. They looked at the top of an old discussion or the RFC listing pages, didn't see a tag, and said they believed that meant that it wasn't an RFC after all.

I could wish that we changed the RFC template/bot behavior (to keep the tag and the anchor to show that it was an RFC, but to make it 'inactive' somehow), but in the meantime, I'm wondering whether the FRS bot could include a rotating bit of advice on RFCs, like "You can find all the open RFCs here" or "If the result is unclear, you can request a closing summary" or "Compromises are important" or "RFC tags are automatically removed after a month, but you can shorten or extend this time" or whatever else might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could specify what posts you're talking about and have the courtesy to ping the users that you think need education from you? If one of them is me, I do confess to saying "I don't believe there is an RfC here as I don't see it in Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/All ..." and if I'd searched that page's history I could have found that there "there used to be an RfC here". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Straight off the top of my head, there is Closure requests. I think that understands. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Redrose64: Glad you're still around, since I want to quote what you told me in 2020 in talk page thread Requests for closure noticeboard: procedure: "Archived threads are de facto closed by the archiving process. If it was a thread that required some kind of formal decision, it really shouldn't have been left untouched for so long that the archiving bot swooped in." WhatamIDoing is now telling me, and others on the thread, re an RfC that the bot took care of on February 5, that it is not "closed". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that now, but I think it's strange for an RFC to remain open but quietly disappear from the list of of active RFCs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are at least two bots involved here, and they have different functions.
 * First, there is, which handles the RfC listings. When this bot detects that the first valid timestamp following a tag is more than thirty days ago, it removes that  tag and also removes the corresponding entries from the listing pages. This is not closure, and nor is it archiving: it is delisting, no more and no less. The discussion remains open, but it is not as broadly publicised as it had been.
 * Second, there are and, which handle archiving of discussion pages. In this context, "to archive" means to cut one or more threads from a discussion page and paste them into a subpage which conventionally includes the word "Archive" in its name. It is this process that I refer to as a de facto closure, since it is not permitted to continue discussions on archive pages. These bots have no means for knowing if a discussion is resolved or not: they look at the time of the most recent activity in the thread, and compare that time against the archive settings at the top of the page. Some pages have archiving settings that mean that a thread might be archived after less than thirty days, and to protect against this, Legobot adds code like   just before the  tag when it adds the rfcid parameter, and leaves that code alone when it removes the  tag. If you come across code like that at the top of a discussion thread that has no  tag, that may indicate that the thread did have an  tag at some point in the past. But the page history should be checked to be sure - the best thing to look for is edits by Legobot. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The only bot changes in the history are by Legobot so it wasn't archived then unarchived, and I can make no joke about RfCs pining for the fjords, assuming this is about me and BarrelProof. As I said earlier, I'm glad you're still around. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is another case where confusion has probably been caused by misuse of terminology. As the terms are defined in the Requests for Comment, there is no such thing as an RfC being open or closed and you can't close an RfC.  You close a discussion or end an RfC.   It's normal for an RfC to end while the discussion is still open.  Common sense says whoever closes a discussion should end the RfC as well, but they're technically separate events.  "Close an RfC" is a slang variously used to mean end an RfC, close an RfC discussion, or both, and it's hard to know which.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Would an RFC be okay in this situation?
There's currently a discussion at regarding a proposal to split that page. Although split proposals aren't usually advertised via RFC (to my knowledge), I find myself agreeing with, who thought it might be worth asking if this proposal should be (in order to collect more input). In addition, as a non-article page, Missing Wikipedians isn't currently being sorted into. I'm inclined to think that, in this instance, it might be worth ignoring the rule that RfCs are not for splitting a page.

I just wanted to ask here if editors thought that adding an RFC tag to the top of the proposal would be appropriate. (As a side note, if an RFC tag is added, what would be the best topic areas to sort it into? ?)

All the best, &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good case for IAR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @A smart kitten, I think you've picked the right topic areas to tag. Regardless of whether you tag the split proposal as an RFC (I think it's okay), the advice in Requests for comment might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the feedback :) &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC etiquette
We do have FAQ (written by @WhatamIdoing) then we do have WP:RFC.

I wish updating WP:RFC further RfC etiquette which will help users to avoid common mistakes.


 * A) I wish to add Feedback request service in section see also of WP:RFC
 * B) I wish to include brief tips from WP:BLUDGEON WP:TLDR WP:AGF WP:NPA 1) Read up on the policy that governs the actions you are taking. Quote the policy in your reasoning (briefly, redacting extraneous material as needed) 2) Read how to keep your comments very brief and concise 3) It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to answer/ argue against  every single comment that is contrary to your position. 3) Once at RfC it's for community to take the call. Main proponent and opponent take note, you don't always win in a discussion, and the point of the discussion isn't to find a winner or loser - It is to find consensus. Everyone finds themselves on the other side of consensus every now and then. Accept community decisions at RfC  and move on. 3) Update "Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions." with remember" Remember we are here for improvement in content and not personalisation of disputes, meet any impatience with patience,  If you loose the track go back to the track and focus on content and resolve content issues with the help of community.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This sounds like instruction creep. I don't think it will help, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't even get every person who starts an RfC to read WP:RFCBEFORE, some even ignore WP:RFCST. So this idea will have little effect. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As community wishes, but the perception as of now I have is as below:
 * True, reading everything in one go like a Phd is not humanly possible. But IMO people study policy and guidelines when confronted or suggested by multiple people in multiple instances.
 * I suppose you won't agree less that, we do best of ours to provide as smooth user experience as possible. While building a user manual, people would read it immediately or not is not the question, as long as, the user manual instructions are not harmful in themselves.
 * I suppose you would agree that WP:BLUDGEON, WP:TLDR, WP:AGF, WP:NPA too big to read at one go. The above suggested points are very brief gist essential parts of those pages intending to provide Right guidance at right time at right place. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to amend Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ

 * Let's delete the first bullet. It's rather unhelpful and, to be quite frank, needlessly facetious.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've used it, and I've found it helpful.
 * Can you re-write it to be less facetious? The point to make is that efforts to invalidate an RFC because you think it's coming to the wrong conclusion are inappropriate, even if you dress up your concerns in wikilawyer-approved language like "it's not RFCNEUTRAL" or "it's not RFCBRIEF". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please!! Pretty please!! Zerotalk 14:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, which is sort of relevant. WP:RfC says "You can also ask for help or a second opinion at WT:RfC", but when you open an editing window at WT:RfC (like I am now) you get a banner that only says "This page deals with information about the RfC process.". It is anomalous for the talk page of a policy/guideline/infopage to double as the place to complain about particular cases, rather than only to discuss the process itself. Should we have a proper noticeboard (think RSN or NPOVN or BLPN) where complaints and appeals about particular RfCs should go rather than here? Zerotalk 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that adding yet another noticeboard would help anyone. It would have the effect of encouraging complaints and meta-disputes.  We need less of that, not more.
 * Also, even if the number of complaints were doubled, the level isn't enough to sustain a noticeboard (see the failed Notability/Noticeboard). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it is a bad thing to provide more opportunities for dispute resolution, and I don't agree that the level of complaints about RfCs is as low as you believe. Zerotalk 06:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've asked (many times now) for the community (a) to set up a dedicated RfC review venue and (b) to hold RfCs on designated subpages that we can index and search, as we do with AfDs. To my disappointment, the community has never displayed any appetite to do either.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, delete FAC 1, it assumes bad faith. Rather, you have to accept that people do actually have concerns for the reasons they say they are concerned, and not from some ulterior reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To assume bad faith is to assume that the person is trying to hurt Wikipedia. Do you really think that's saying "You're trying to hurt Wikipedia"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No. To assume bad faith is to assume they are making their statement of concern in bad faith, concealing their true reason/motive behind misdirection or a lie. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker is correct. Zerotalk 03:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

First bullet rewrite, draft #1
How's that?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like it too. BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Me too. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no mechanism to change the question if the proposer doesn't agree. And the proposer is the one most likely to resist the change, especially if the non-neutrality is deliberate (which is common). Also, once people have !voted in an RfC, it is too late to change the question. We are better off removing this item altogether. Zerotalk 03:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't that assuming "bad faith", as defined above, from the question asker? Are you saying that the people starting the RFCs "are making their questions in bad faith, concealing their true reason/motive behind misdirection or a lie"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If "not assuming bad faith" covered everything, we would not need any complaint mechanisms or drama boards. People do sometimes edit-war, they do sometimes push personal opinions into articles, they do sometimes attack each other, and they do sometimes write unbalanced RfCs. Bad faith would be to automatically assume that biased RfCs were deliberate, which isn't true and I didn't do it. But we still need some way to deal with biased RfCs and currently there isn't one. Zerotalk 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Any useful information at WT:Requests for comment/FAQ should be moved to WP:RFC and then the FAQ should be deleted. We have policies, we have guidelines, we have info pages, and... the info pages have FAQs? That's too much. Levivich (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Best suggestion yet. Zerotalk 06:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You know, I've always said that about FAQs in general. If there is a frequently asked question, either A) the documentation is defective; or B) people don't like to read, in which case they won't read the FAQ.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FAQs sometimes make sense for articles, but if there is a frequently asked question about a policy, it should be answered in the policy. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a FAQ format helps people understand the content better. About half the FAQ items here are already in the page, just with different wording.  Some of the others ("Is the result of an RFC binding?") are in other pages, and it's a best practice not to fork policies across many pages when we can reasonably avoid it.  The first two are a practical application of Talk page guidelines to the unusual situation of the RFC question, which is (usually) sorta kinda one individual's comments but also sorta kinda like a section heading.  Which reminds me:  @S Marshall, if we're going to suggest that there might be a good reason to fix the question, we should probably also suggest that the complainant is the wrong person to do that "fixing".  Edit warring over RFC questions has occasionally been a problem in the past, as the obviously biased "Should this article name those marble-hearted fiends?" gets turned into the equally biased "Should this article name those staunch and loyal citizens?"  The usual approach to a question that one believes to be biased is to explain the errors or objections in one's own response as soon as possible.
 * (Levivich, WP:RFC isn't technically a policy, but I'm pretty sure you knew that.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've made the edit, but I'll leave this open, to allow for the chance that this proposal to delete a bloody useful FAQ might gain consensus, although I personally very much hope it doesn't.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not thrilled with this bullet, though it isn't worse than the old one. It is my belief that biased and otherwise flawed RfC questions are a major problem (frequently resulting in a "no consensus" result when consensus was possible, for example). I also believe that editors should be encouraged in this situation to channel their frustration into "Malformed RfC" !votes rather than engaging in disruption, and I rather wish this point were made clearly in the FAQ. Newimpartial (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Signing an RfC
The instructions for creating an RfC have long stated that either ~ (name and date) or (date only) are acceptable ways to sign it. This has always struck me as an anomoly: what else of substance can one write on an article talk page without signing it? The only discussion I can find is from 2018 and appears to be overall in favor of requiring a name. I'm reminded of this question by a recent case where one of the main protagonists on the talk page of a contentious article refused to have their name on the RfC they created. This wouldn't be a serious issue if all RfCs strictly obeyed the neutrality requirement, but we know that isn't the case. So I'm asking you all if it is worth revisiting this question, to consider whether we want to keep the old instructions or change them. Zerotalk 14:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The original instructions for RFCs required a date stamp without a name. This has some positive results: The editors responding to the question aren't immediately biased by previous interactions with the person posting the question (e.g., voting for their friends).  A question can be written by multiple people without misleadingly attributing it to a single person.  Also, RFC questions should be written so that people new to the discussion can't tell which 'side' started the RFC, so why put a 'biased' name on a neutral question?
 * My question for you is, beyond having this not-so-normal process match everyday comments, why do you want that editor's name on that RFC? Are you hoping to trigger biasing effects (e.g., "Oh, it's from that editor.  Well, that's going to be hopelessly biased.  I should vote against him"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you really need to know who started an RfC, look at the page history. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It can help the closer to know who framed the RfC and what outcome they wanted; but personally I tend to check the history anyway, because the question has sometimes been edited, and where that's happened, I want to know what it said when each !vote was cast. Most RfCs are signed ime.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why they should not be signed and it saves people having to look, which I would instantly do if it wasn't. Are you hoping to trigger biasing effects (e.g., "Oh, it's from that editor. Well, that's going to be hopelessly biased. I should vote against him"). Or what a great RFC, I'll vote for him? This strikes me as naivete, of course those editors familiar with that person are going to be biased to some extent and they won't need triggering at all, particularly if its a CT. Editors that don't know the person presumably won't be triggered in any event so there is no gain in not signing. I accept that a workshopped "group" RFC need not be signed but then the RFCbefore will identify that group in any case. It wouldn't even occur to me not to sign an RFC I put up. Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There's another effect for signing: "I think – ugh, my friend is voting the other way.  I'll just skip this one, so I don't have to publicly disagree." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody suggested that votes to RfCs can be unsigned, so I don't understand this objection. If the RfC itself is not neutral it violates the rules already. Zerotalk 01:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If the RfC is neutrally worded (which it should be in the first place), I don't think the editor's name matters. Some1 (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In the ideal situation that would be true. However, in contentious areas there is frequent disagreement over whether particular RfCs are neutral, and almost everyone would agree that many are not neutral even if they disagree on which RfCs those are. So what is fine in theory is not necessarily fine in practice. Zerotalk 04:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See the first question in the FAQ at the top of this page. People claim "non-neutrality" whenever they're worried that the outcome will disagree with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That question and its flippant answer are embarrassing and shouldn't be here. Of course it is true that people are more likely to complain when they are on the losing side, but that doesn't mean that there is never a genuine problem with the neutrality of an RfC. Another thing I would like to see is a standardised mechanism by which an RfC can be challenged (for neutrality or any other reason) with decisions restricted to uninvolved admins. Zerotalk 04:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's actually pretty uncommon for an RFC question to be completely non-neutral. We get some complaints on this page about it, but I don't remember the last time I saw a complaint here about one that was unreasonably non-neutral; it doesn't even happen once a year.  The few that are unreasonably non-neutral typically get fixed locally, and that usually happens pretty quickly.  When we get complaints here, it's usually an acceptable question being challenged by someone who is "losing", and quite often who would like to install a question with the opposite bias.
 * When I see WP:RFCNEUTRAL getting linked in other discussions, it's likely to be an editor saying that the RFC question is okay. (WP:RFCBRIEF is a more common complaint, probably by >50%.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Few people would know to come here to complain about a specific RfC, even though the possibility is mentioned. Experienced users would assume it is not the place, just as complaints about reliability of particular sources don't go to WT:RS and complaints about personal attacks don't go to WT:NPA. So I propose that you only see a small fraction of disputes here. Most of the disputes I see never leave the page they are on unless they spill over onto a drama board like AE, AN/I or RSN. Zerotalk 06:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Continuing: Moreover, if someone did come here to complain about a particular RfC and saw the insulting notice at the top of the page which translates as "Came here to complain did you? Well, fuck off." they would go away. Zerotalk 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the (now closed) RfC over at the Israel–Hamas war article what prompted this discussion? Where editors were apparently disputing over the in/exclusion of the editor's name? If an RfC is supposedly not neutral, then that's a problem with the RfC wording itself; the editor's name not being next to the timestamp is immaterial. Some1 (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course all editors with a minimum of experience know how to check the page history, so it isn't a matter of hiding information in a cryptographic sense. But we should ask ourselves why we sign talk page contributions at all; after all, that information is in the page history too. A signature just places open information in a more convenient place. I'm not convinced by 's focus on motivation, since for any ulterior motive for wanting a signature one can think of an ulterior motive for not wanting a signature. The case of RfCs initiated by groups is easily accommodated: just write this information at the end of the RfC. Zerotalk 01:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Though history remains available, in RfCs with many users and too many response edits, suppose some one changes question in such subtle manner in between and goes unnoticed, finding who did and did it accidentally, inadvertently or mischievously would take more time and that will make users more angry. If new user is making mistake inadvertently rather than getting mentoring support might land being lashed out. &#32;Bookku    (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to be a problem in practice. High-traffic RFCs are the ones most likely to notice a change to the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * If the premise for not signing is that signing could introduce bias by way of prejudice directed at the OP, that would be a bad faith assumption, which is something that I thought we avoided. This would then be rather strange reasoning, in principle, to enshrine in the guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a complete statement of the rationales. Consider it from the POV of someone starting an RFC, who feels like everyone is biased against them.  Should we insist that they add their name, when they believe that will result in biased responses? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that editors have the right to hide information that other editors may consider relevant. Why should a right to hide trump a right to know? I think that our policies and procedures should favor openness whenever there is no serious need for secrecy. Moreover, there are plenty of times when the identity of the proposer is indeed relevant for judging the RfC: (1) if the proposer has a history of disruptive editing. (2) if the proposer is an experienced edit-warrior in the topic area. Everyone working in contentious areas knows how to spin a statement that seems neutral to the uninitiated but actually favours their pov. Zerotalk 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Zero, I know you feel that RfC questions should be signed, but where a RfC question is devised by several people -- or even worked up on a subpage -- do you feel it should be signed by one principal proposer, or by a handful, or by everyone who's proposed it? Or by everyone who agrees with it?  What about when a question changes, because it's been improved partway through?  Would we want an editor who came along later to countersign it?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's a minority situation that shouldn't define the general rule. The important thing is openness. There is nothing to stop the person who types the RfC in from saying where it came from, even if it is a group of people or a subpage or whatever. However, it doesn't sound like a good idea for someone to come along later and add their name; it would look too much like a different type of !vote. Zerotalk 14:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The history page provides openness.
 * The question here is why should every RFC at (for example) Requests for comment/Biographies of living people be required to name one editor? This page isn't encouraging unsigned RFC questions; it's only providing information about how to do so if the editor(s) think that would be appropriate.
 * To start hiding the information, we'd have to determine that this is never appropriate, including that:
 * if an RFC question is written by a group, it should still have one individual's name on it;
 * if I change your RFC question, it should still have your name on it; and
 * if someone posts an RFC for technical reasons or because a group seems to be interested in it, then it should have that individual's name on it instead of the people who are actually interested in the outcome;
 * and, of course, that most editors think it's truly important to know who wrote the question, which doesn't exactly align with our Comment on content, not on the contributor principles. In short, I don't really think there's a problem to be fixed here, even if it's occasionally surprising to some people that unsigned comments happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nope, do what is best practice ie what everyone else usually does, sign the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that signing other people's comments, or collectively written comments, as "my" comment, actually is the best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Signing an RfC, draft #1

 * Does that accurately reflect what we're saying?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I disagree with most of that: It's not actually a best practice to sign an RFC (though it is some editors' personal preference, and some of them appear to be willing to force other editors to follow their preference); the person who initiated might be different from the one who designed it, leading to confusion and disputes ("Why did you sign my name on that?  You posted it!"); editors might disagree over who the "lead editors" are; it's actually bad practice to add a changelog for minor changes to the question; and if you're reluctant to sign an RFC, it might be because it's not "your" RFC in the first place (for example:  every time one of the regulars on this page cuts a badly formatted or extremely long RFC down to a simple question that won't break Requests for comment/All).
 * This adds a lot of WP:CREEP without recognizing that there are valid reasons to not sign the initial question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'm trying to make sure I've fully grasped this thought before I judge it.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd go further, I'd say if you don't want to sign it, don't put it up. If there is actually a valid reason to have an RFC, then someone willing to sign it will put it up instead. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Third opinion tells users to always sign with WP:5TILDES. They think this will reduce the initial bias from the responding editor.  Do you have the same opinion about their process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the opposite:
 * BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I too am in this camp. While who initiated an RfC is a matter of record, the presentation should be that the question is by Wikipedia; it is not personal and is not owned by anyone.  Note that in a regular talk page contribution, it is bad form for anyone else to edit it -- the words are personal.  RfC questions are different.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And if we count up all the RFCs in the last year say and see how many are signed, what do you do think that would look like? (going by my own area, nearly all of them) If that position has so much merit why doesn't the procedure just say "don't sign the RFC" Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It used to. Then people wanted the option of signing their questions.  Eventually, the new option became popular.  Now there is a push from a couple of editors to make the most popular choice become mandatory.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It used to. Then people wanted the option of signing their questions.  Eventually, the new option became popular.  Now there is a push from a couple of editors to make the most popular choice become mandatory.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I usually sign the RFC question with five tildes, specifically so that my name doesn't appear in RFC digests and FRS notices, to avoid the pro/anti biases people mentioned above. Then, below the timestamp, usually with my vote (or if I'm not voting, just in a below-the-question comment), I'll write something like "(as proposer)" or "(as RFC initiator)" so that people know who wrote the RFC question. I feel like this splitting of the baby provides best of both worlds. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Where an RfC question is the work of two or more editors, it's best practice for one or two of the lead editors to sign it. The problem with that is that Legobot looks for the first valid timestamp, and no further. If two people both sign with four tildes, you will get the sequence
 * - Statement - User 1 identfication - Timestamp 1 - User 2 identfication - Timestamp 2
 * in he RfC itself, but the RfC listings will only show
 * Statement - User 1 identfication - Timestamp 1
 * the second user identification is lost. You would need to say something like Each lead editor should sign with three tildes, except the last one who should sign with four. This overcomplicates it, IMO. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've been imagining that the focus here is what's on the talk page, rather than the RFC question itself. For example, we sometimes end up with:
 * – Brief question – Timestamp – Lengthy background explanation – User identification – Timestamp
 * Only the first bit is "the question" and will appear in Requests for comment/All, but the editors who want to know who started it will be able to figure that out at a glance when they arrive on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might as well sign it to begin with then. Selfstudier (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If I'm !voting I normally try to give my !vote the same timestamp as the statement, as a subtler way of letting interested editors see without checking the history who started the RfC, but your method is a good one - I'll give it some thought, but I'll probably do it that way in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is one of framing, the person who creates an RFC prompt is choosing how to frame a dispute. And they often are the first person responding to an RFC. So for an RFC that had no prior collaboration among people with disparate views as to what the outcome would ideally be, the initiator is both able to frame the dispute and have prepared an answer that preempts the points others may make. Its one thing when the question has been created by a group of people in a dispute, it is quite another when it is being created by one person in a dispute who may be framing it in a way intended to give his view an advantage. And when that is the case, people should know that first vote and the question are by the same person.  nableezy  - 22:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nableezy has made my main point, here, and I would amplify it: editors should be informed of who posted the RfC, and its provenance, without having to do research to figure this out. (This includes not only an appropriate signature but also a link to RFCBEFORE discussions.)
 * To me, the vast majority of RfCs I see that are drafted by a single editor (or a small group of like-minded editors) are framed in a way that reflects those editors' preferred outcome, even when they do not intend this. The approach preferred by some editors, who present an implicitly biased question followed by a !vote that pretends the question is neutral while presenting an elaborate argument for the preferred answer to the carefully selected question, is one of the more dysfunctional practices that manages to avoid the territory of overt disruption, at least in my experience. Newimpartial (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In re people should know that first vote and the question are by the same person, another approach is to discourage the person starting the RFC from being the first to vote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Always sign. I endorse the comments by nableezy and Newimpartial. Whatever the RFC text is, the person posting has endorsed it, so attribute it to them. If you want to also list a co-creator of the RfC, that is fine as well.  starship .paint  (RUN) 04:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Could I make an RfC for this situation?
Hi! I want to know if I can make an RfC for this situation: Talk:Valencia. Since this discussion is going nowhere and there is no consensus, would it be necessary to do an RfC to see what people think about Valencia's climate? The climate data demonstrates this, but there is one user who disagrees with this and that's why no consensus was reached. So I wanted to know what I could do in this situation. My idea was to do an RfC, but I don't know if it's appropriate. Farell37 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this would make a good RfC. It's not actually a question about Valencia's climate and doesn't require any technical understanding of Valencia or even climate; it seems to be nothing more than a question of Wikipedia policy -- whether synthesizing climate data from one source with definitions of climate categories from another constitutes acceptable paraphrasing of sources or is unacceptable original research.
 * To keep it focused, I would make the question something like, "Do sources support saying Valencia has a semi-arid climate?" But to avoid wasting time on an RfC that doesn't resolve anything, you should get agreement on the question from the other disputant first.  I may have misunderstood the issue.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems a good idea! It seems that the discussion won't reach a consensus, so I'll just try to make an RfC to ask community if this is considered original research or not. If the majority says yes, then we will have to make drastic changes to many Wikipedia pages, as most of them do not cite a specific source that classifies climate, but rather only climate data. If not, we will reach a consensus more easily. Thanks! Farell37 (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC clerk volunteer for upcoming DYK RFC
Hi all. The DYK community is preparing for a future RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. It would be good for the project to have an experienced RFC clerk who is not a regular editor at DYK to clerk the upcoming RFC. If someone here is willing to do that for us please let me know. Also, any experienced editors at organizing RFCs, please take a look at what we are doing and make any constructive comments at the linked discussion. I appreciate any and all assistance. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @4meter4, I've looked through the questions you initially proposed and the discussion. You might be best off with a series of RFCs (which do not need to be 30 days long; that's a default for the bot, not a mandatory minimum).
 * The first problem I see in the discussion is that "negative hooks" isn't defined, and people don't seem to have a good shared understanding of what it means. The definition should acknowledge that editors come from different cultures and have different life experiences, so there will inevitably be some editors who disagree.  It should also differentiate between contentious (=people fight over it) and negative (=editors think it says something bad about the person, even if they all agree that it's 100% accurate and well-sourced).  Some examples will probably help, but they don't need to be real.  You could give examples like "... that Chris Criminal was convicted of a crime last week?" or "... that Rae Risktaker has claimed to dislike the Thai monarchy?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. I will work to craft some language and may come back for further input once I have.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ I added a note per your suggestion in the questions section at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Does this solve this issue, or do you suggest something further?4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've started the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and you're getting some answers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)