NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.
Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not usually grounds to halt or re-start the RFC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RFC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.
RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?
As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?
Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RFC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?
No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
There was an RFC a long time ago, but we're doing something different now. Do we have to hold a second RFC to officially over-rule the old RFC?
No. Consensus can change, and an RFC is not required to prove that the community's consensus has changed. However, even though having another RFC is technically optional, it might still be a good idea, especially if there is a current dispute.
How many RFCs are there?
As of 2024, there are usually about two RFCs started each day. Before 2021, there were about three new RFCs each day.
How many people comment in RFCs?
The number of respondents varies depending on the subject area and the amount of effort needed to answer the question (e.g., higher for popular articles, lower for highly technical questions). It's not unusual to see about five to 20 people participate in a discussion, with a possible range from zero responses to (rarely) several hundred.
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a collaborative effort to improve dispute resolution practices on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
How my correction added clarity and transparency
New:
The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Unfortunately, statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation introduce more risk of having Wikipedia editors not read it, usually through instruction creep, thus abandoning their initial desire to weigh in, without which harms the verifiability of Wikipedia and can even make finding this level of consensus impossible. The next, worse risk is of explicit neutrality violation involving a ===Discussion=== subsection; the lower prominence that comes with maximizing comprehension beyond the minimum required level makes it first-in-line for abuse.
Old:
This lack of contextualization of instruction creep makes it unclear. This inferred wrongness makes it obscure.
The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent. Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed @Giraffedata has removed all references to instruction creep, but from that article it links to TLDR which I think goes against your Cynic's Appendix, in your userpage. 5. Any editor who argues their point by invoking "editor retention", is not an editor Wikipedia wants to retain. Now, others are also against bringing up one guideline as "the rules", understandably, but now you should admit that you're the one crowbarring something into Wikipedia.Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are meant to help editors understand site processes and social norms.
It is unfortunate, for example, that statements are worded as questions. That's one behavior the guideline is being written to address. It's not inferred there's wrongness, it's plain there is given the medium through which participants will encounter a given RfC. That is the accumulated wisdom from experience with the process, a form of site consensus.
That ties into what is a slightly glaring non-sequitur about what guidelines don't say. The section is trying to provide guidance for editors who want to achieve this brevity and neutrality. I'm not sure why the instinct is to remove any concrete guidance and explanation from the section entirely, unless it amounts to a basic lack of familiarity with the realities of bad RfCs, or with the reality that consensus levels aren't strictly stratified, and a passage like this is here because it's particularly visible and useful. Remsense 🌈 论04:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's unfortunate that RFCs usually open with a question ("Shall we mention this in this article?") instead of a statement ("We should mention this in this article").
The other problem addressed in that paragraph is the problem of editors making up non-existent rules about how RFCs "ought" to be conducted (i.e., so that 'my' side will win). One of the common bits of misinformation is that the person starting an RFC with a suitably brief RFC question ("Shall we mention this in this article?") is not allowed to explain ("'This' means...") or even to post a long answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "We should mention this in this article", whilst brief, is not neutral: it introduces opinion at the second word. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out the section (maybe I should've mentioned) is about a positivist perspective on RFC, not negativist. It's actually dependent on the reader to know when a heel turn is being made.Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I restrained on it being "wrong" to just "unfortunate reality". It is saying it's usual for people to be less confident by framing a statement as an interrogative statement rather than a declarative statement. And I also think what is obscure is not commenting on "answering your own question" and the like in an improminent area. Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-make after a careful re-reading and some input.
New proposal:
Due to less dramatic difference than initially thought when spelled out for accuracy, only unclear for those that disagree with TLDR, and obscure for those who severely distrust interrogative statements as well due to them being able to be answered rhetorically, I rescind this proposal.
The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Interrogative statements, indicating less confidence than their declarative counterparts, are often made, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation introduce more risk of having Wikipedia editors not read it, usually through instruction creep, thus abandoning their initial desire to weigh in, without which harms the verifiability of Wikipedia and can detract especially from the RfC process of consensus-driven decision-making. Finally, a worse risk is of explicit neutrality violation using improminent areas (e.g. involving a ===Discussion=== subsection; the goal of increased comprehension beyond the minimum required level can make it first-in-line for abuse).
Old (for reference):
The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent. Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't using "interrogative statements" because we're "indicating less confidence". We are asking questions because we want editors to answer them. Think about going to a restaurant and being asked "What would you like to order?" Ask a question when you want an answer from other people. For example, ask "Should the lead of this article say that the word anti-semiism is sometimes used to describe anti-Arab racism, citing sources such as [1][2][3]?" Then you need to sit quietly and wait for other editors to answer your question, with responses like "No, because WP:NOTDICT" or "Yes, but per this source [4] we also need to say that this has always an uncommon meaning and that it has basically never been used that way since the 1970s" or "No, because even though it's true, the scope of this article is discrimination against Jews and not anything this word has been used for" or whatever they want.
"Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation" do risk Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, but our concern is that "Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation" increase the risk of biased questions and especially that they increase the risk of screwing up the page formatting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.
There is no evidence that long RFC questions result in editors "abandoning their initial desire to weigh in". They usually answer the questions anyway. Garbled RFC questions risk low participation, but a long RFC question that is clear and sensible does not have this effect.
The result of a low response is not a result that "harms the verifiability of Wikipedia"; many RFCs have no significant element of WP:V involved. It can – sometimes – "detract especially from the RfC process of consensus-driven decision-making", but this is a needlessly long way of saying it.
I still have no confidence that your sentence "Finally, a worse risk is of explicit neutrality violation using improminent areas (e.g. involving a ===Discussion=== subsection; the goal of increased comprehension beyond the minimum required level can make it first-in-line for abuse)" means, well, anything. Implicit neutrality violations are bigger problems. A ===Discussion=== subsection – which is a section where RFC respondents discuss the subject, not a place where the person starting the RFC gets to pontificate unchallenged – isn't a neutrality problem. In fact, a ===Discussion=== subsection can be a great place to discuss concerns about neutrality.
Unlike your de facto ally @Bon courage who has explicit disagreement with TLDR, which tellingly you didn't address their actual non-response/stonewalling concerning WP:BLUD and tendency to ignore my own recollection of events in Talk:Antisemitism#"We_know_that_the_Semites_include_Arabs." and seemingly devolving into your attempt to weigh in on such a prospective RFC, nothing else here seems to disagree with my evaluation, where only those who severely distrust interrogative statements as well due to them being able to be answered rhetorically are condemned. Lumbering in thought (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RFCs tend not to produce rhetorical answers, regardless of whether the opening line ends with a period or a question mark. You can safely stop worrying about rhetorical responses in terms of RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm out, and I'd suggest that this mixture of unclarity and hostility is best met with brevity. I don't support the initial proposed change or any of the alternate formulations, all of which would lengthen and confuse the guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing It is weird we have this SecurePoll thing, where people can vote in private, and we use it for admin elections (where seeing other people's votes can be important) and not for boring stuff like "Should article X have a userbox" that is controversial for nonsensical reasons. I never understood that. Polygnotus (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am someone who until just now did not know that infoboxes were considered a contentious topic, perhaps because no one has ever placed an infobox CTOP warning at the top of the talk page of any article I've worked on (at least, not that I recall). It would surprise me if infoboxes are more contentious than or require more attention to civility than other CTOPs. WaId, are you wondering specifically about infobox RfCs, or are you instead wondering if there should be a bit of info about RfCs involving any contentious topic? If it's the former, offhand, I don't see a reason to single out infoboxes, though I suppose it might make sense to single out any CTOP that typically is not included in the top-of-talk page alerts.
A broader comment: I've had a harder time than I think one should have navigating all of the CTOP info in trying to make sense of it / understand what I need to abide by with CTOPs. I don't know whether others feel similarly. Although this is not the place to work on that, it may be relevant background. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FactOrOpinion: It's not that infoboxes per se are contentious, it's their use in certain classes of articles. Some years ago, there was a lot of edit-warring between the infobox supporters and the infobox haters. The situation was basically resolved that some articles should always have an infobox - such as a settlement or species; and some should almost never have an infobox - such as mathematical concepts. Excluded from both these groups were biographies, where edit-warring continued until Arbcom were called in. Some people are passionately against infoboxes in biogs; some are equally passionate against. However, it has largely been agreed that some biogs will normally have an infobox, such as politicians and sportspeople. What it comes down to is this: if you write a biographical article, you are free to choose whether to have, or not to have, an infobox; if you come across a biographical article with an infobox, you must not remove it without consensus; and equally, if you come across a biographical article without an infobox, you also must not add one without consensus. But almost nobody will complain if you find an article about a settlement that has no infobox, to which you add one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm specifically concerned about RFCs of the "Shall we add an infobox?" variety. ("Shall we remove?" RFCs almost never happen.) These RFCs are usually preceded by a discussion that is not only fruitless but also expected to be fruitless by all the regulars. An RFC is then initiated, and someone on the 'no' side will post a statement similar to the one seen in the RFC linked above. I assume that this is done in an attempt to provide background information (e.g., for newbies) and also to encourage the Right™ Answer (because infobox RFCs usually end with a consensus to add an infobox, so if you want to get a 'no' answer, you have an uphill battle ahead of you).
Mostly I think that if we're going to have such statements, they should actually be neutral (whatever the community decides that means) and also seem neutral (so that it doesn't turn into another thing for the two sides to fight over). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no insight into RfCs specifically about infoboxes, but I just took a look at WP:RFC and see that there is no text about RfCs involving contentious topics. Regardless of whether you decide to add something specifically about infobox RfCs, I think it would be helpful to have a brief section re: RfCs involving contentious topics, saying something like: "If you create an RfC, please check whether the topic is a CTOP, and if so, include a brief neutral note about this at the top of the RfC. Keep in mind that although CTOPs often have notices at the top of a talk page, some may not (e.g., infoboxes), and some RfCs do not occur on an article talk page, so participating editors may not otherwise be aware that the RfC involves one or more CTOPs. Some CTOPs also have special restrictions for formal discussions like RfCs, and any special restrictions should also be noted. For example, you might add "Please note: this RfC involves two contentious topics, biographies of living persons (WP:CT/BLP) and Infoboxes (WP:CT/CID)," or "Please note: this RfC involves a contentious topic, Arab–Israeli conflict (WP:CT/ARBPIA), which has special restrictions: only extended-confirmed editors may participate in this RfC, and each editor is limited to 1,000 words total in the discussion." FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been thinking about a simple subst:able message for infobox RFCs, maybe along these lines:
"Discussions around infoboxes sometimes get heated. Please focus on the content question and avoid arguing with other editors. The most helpful responses to infobox RFCs give a reason why the particular article would/wouldn't be improved by an infobox. See Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Infoboxes for more information."
(As a side note, some day, someone ought to write a list of reasons for/against infoboxes in particular cases. I'm not looking for "in general, infoboxes are good/bad"; I'm looking for a sort of checklist for things like "If the only thing you can put it is the lead image and the person's name, then don't bother" or "If glancing at an infobox will lead to truly serious misunderstandings, such as someone being labeled with |convictions= for crimes, but there are serious doubts about their guilt, or the conviction was later overturned, then an infobox is a bad idea".)
There is no mandatory minimum length of time. This is partly because sometimes it's appropriate to have back-to-back RFCs (e.g., an RFC that reached no consensus, followed by another that reached a consensus, possibly due to greater advertising or a clearer question) and mostly because isn't usually a problem.
It looks like this is being driven by a dispute at Reform UK over whether to have the words "far-right" in the article. Often, when someone complains about a second RFC, it's because the result of the first RFC aligned with their POV, and they are worried that the second RFC might end up with a different result. However, if that sounds potentially relevant for you, then you may be reassured to know that, on average, subsequent RFCs tend to confirm the original answer, often with responses that explicitly say this was settled in a previous RFC and the community's answer hasn't changed. (And if the community's view has changed in the meantime – well, then the article should change.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose another question is about folks starting a rfc for a moratorium on new discussion on a new topic, like at Imane Khelif s article right now.
@Bluethricecreamman: The outcome of an RfC isn't policy, unless the topic was one of deciding whether to amend an existing policy, or to raise an existing guideline to policy. Such RfCs will normally be held either on the talk page of the policy/guideline concerned, or at WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read the FAQ at the top of this page:
Is the result of an RFC binding?
Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RFC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
I can't think of anything we could say. If someone who knows about a previous RFC creates another one that covers the same ground, he probably believes it's different ground or that the previous one was ambiguous, so would consider any guidance we might give about leaving a gap to be irrelevant.
But on the other hand, there is one situation we might address: RFCs are not forever, as it is understood that consensus can change. An editor might re-ask the very same question five years later just to see if consensus still holds. Maybe the editor believes relevant facts have changed or arguments were missed, or just senses a change of attitude in the wind or thinks that the original consensus feels dated. Maybe we don't want someone trying this every month, though. I'm not aware this has happened enough to warrant bloating the info page. Repeated RFCs I've seen are of the kind I mentioned above -- the creator doesn't think it's a pure repeat. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
