Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

How many examples of formatting should be given here?

The WP:RFC instructions include an ===Example=== subsection. How long and detailed should it be? Which of the two recent options do you prefer? (Both include a link to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting, which provides even more options.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

What should we include in the ===Example=== sub-section?

Option 1

Option 2

=== Example ===

Below is an example of how a new RfC appears while you are editing the talk page. You can copy and paste this example, but be sure to change the wording to reflect your particular topic (for example, the "hist" category may need to be changed). A signature ("~~~~") or at least a date ("~~~~~") is required. After you have inserted text similar to this into the talk page, you must save the page.

== Is the photo in the History section relevant? ==
{{rfc|hist}}
Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~

The most common style is this simple, single-section format. However, there are many other styles, some of which can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting.

=== Example ===

Below is an example of how a new RfC appears while you are editing the talk page. You can copy and paste this example, but be sure to change the wording to reflect your particular topic (for example, the "hist" category may need to be changed). A signature ("~~~~") or at least a date ("~~~~~") is required. After you have inserted text similar to this into the talk page, you must save the page.

== Is the photo in the history section relevant? ==
{{rfc|hist}}
Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~

Consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second called "threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. This will make the RfC easier to close. It might look like this:

== Is the photo in the history section relevant? ==
{{rfc|hist}}
Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~

=== Survey ===
*'''Support''' inclusion of the photograph, which helps the reader. ~~~~
*'''Oppose''', it isn't relevant enough. ~~~~

=== Threaded discussion ===
*I have concerns about this photograph. ~~~~
**What kind of concerns? ~~~~

Other styles can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting.

Some examples of how people might choose to format an RFC were WP:SPLIT to a separate page a couple of years ago. It may (or may not, of course) be desirable to provide more examples directly on this page. Which of these two versions do you prefer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I prefer Option 1.

But something between the two, where there is a sentence or two summarizing the point of other styles, would be even better. For example, "Other common styles are more complex, perhaps involving subsections, but may organize the discussion better." Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discussion review

I created the page, Wikipedia:Discussion review, as a draft for an upcoming proposal of the process. I tagged it as "Brainstorming", so I need your contributions to the working process. --George Ho (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposer appears to have conceded defeat of the proposal. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to do a simple thing...

but I have spent way too much time trying to navigate the thicket of Wik sites and language.

Two editors are having a long argument on the Betsy DeVos page over whether some financial information about DeVos's father belongs on the page or not. I tried to list it on 3O, but it was booted off because one or two other editors had at one point briefly chimed in. I went to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard , but was told nobody there would notice it and that I should go to RfC, which said that a complete list of CURRENT disputes listed would be found at RfC/all. How-ever, when I went thither, I found that it said not to list new requests (I thought current includes new). Can some-one please either direct me to the correct place to list or in some other way help the two disputants out of their morass of cross-talk? Kdammers (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kdammers: There is no such page as RfC/all, I expect you mean WP:Rfcall which is a redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. This is rarely edited, the bulk of its content is transcluded from multiple pages such as WP:RFC/BIO (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies) etc. These (which I call the "RfC listing pages") are in turn built by Legobot (talk · contribs) which does so by initially looking for uses of the {{rfc}} template and performing various processes.

So the thing to do (see WP:RFC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues) is go to the place where the discussion is being held - presumably Talk:Betsy DeVos - and add a {{rfc}} template with one or more appropriate category codes, for example {{rfc|bio|pol}}; follow that with a brief, neutrally-worded statement of the problem, and sign it with four (or five) tildes. See for example Talk:Julianne Moore#RfC. At approximately one minute past the hour, Legobot will notice this, add a |rfcid= parameter to the {{rfc}} template, and add entries to the relevant RfC listing pages, so it will then make its way onto Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you lost me. Kdammers (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't edit Wikipedia:Requests for comment or any of its subpages. Concern yourself only with Talk:Betsy DeVos. Pose a question there, put a signature after it and {{rfc|bio|pol}} before it, and save. Then wait for me to reply here again. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

One outsider person made a short comment, but all the rest of the responses have been from the two opponents writing, ti seems to me, the same things at each other over and over. Kdammers (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kdammers: Who gets involved, and what they say to or about each other, is really of no concern to this talk page. All that RfCs do is send out an open invitation with no obligation to participate. I presume that by "made a short comment, but all the rest of the responses" you refer to posts at the article's talk page, but you didn't link to that, or the relevant thread. Having now looked at the article's talk page, I see that there is an open RfC in the section Talk:Betsy DeVos/Archives/2017#Other opinions? - which I didn't notice at the time since it occurred on 25 December, when I had other things to do.

Anyway, Nabla's first comment is valid: you refer to "this discussion", but it's at the start of a new thread, so you gave no indication of which discussion you require assistance with. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Appeal

How can I appeal the closure of an Rfc? Debresser (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Challenging_other_closures. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reopening RfCs

Per discussion, I reopened an RfC at Talk:Melania Trump, which I had closed on 16 Feb. I reinstated the coding that had been placed there by bot. Was that the correct way to reinstate an RfC or do I need to do something else? Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. The first thing after the tag has to be the RfC summary, which ends up on the RfC lists, whereas you had the history of the RfC verbiage ("closed, reopened") there. I have corrected it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do some editors get "Please comment on" notices on their talk pages?

Why do some editors get "Please comment on" notices on their talk pages? I've seen some editors that frequently get bot notices to "Please comment on [_____ RfC]". I have never gotten one of those notices in all of my ten years on Wikipedia. Why? Softlavender (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRS -- Cabayi (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixing obvious errors and adding additional options to RfCs

I've seen some concerning things recently regarding RfCs.

Some quotes related to my concerns: "Alternative proposals: Please start your own RfC rather than detracting from this one to make your point."; "My mistake, and my apologies. I'll make the correction - but please do not change the wording of an RfC started by another editor. Note 'An editor has requested comments...' in the box above." in the box above." (a reference to the wording of {{rfc}}); "No, it would not, because I'm not asking for comments on Option E, and the RfC is, as stated in the big fucking box that heads up the section, AN EDITOR requesting comments. If you, or anyone else, adds options without my permission, I will remove them if they don't meet with my approval. If they edit war to keep them in against my will, I will simply shut down the goddamn RfC." (part of a response to my comment "Just because you start an RfC doesn't mean you own it. For example, if someone wanted to add an option E in some manner, it would be reasonable.")

I disagree with those quotes. Firstly, I don't believe that is the intended meaning behind "An editor". If someone corrects an obvious error or adds a reasonable alternative option in/to the wording of the RfC itself [in good faith], especially if they leave a note to that effect and its toward the very beginning of the RfC before many have commented, and perhaps striking the old text depending on the circumstance, I think that [should be] entirely acceptable. In fact, I think [format fixes] ought to be encouraged, as this is a collaborative project. It would also be completely inappropriate to withdraw an RfC in the manner described in one of the quotes, especially after others have participated. Lastly, excluding others from adding alternative options may lead to competing RfCs making the assessment of consensus difficult, and make it so good ideas are never considered.

The quotes provided are from various discussions. I have not provided diffs because this is meant to be a general discussion about what is appropriate in an RfC, not about specific discussions or behavior. I'm interested in what others think about how and when it is appropriate to edit the wording of an RfC or add a new option, and I think some clarification to this guideline one way or another is due (it is seemingly a grey area, unless there is some guidance I'm unaware of).

— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It is important to note that there is no exception in the talk page guidelines for RFCs to the rule that you shouldn't edit other people's entries on article talk pages. And that's a guideline whereas this isn't even that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO#unsigned does permit the addition of a signature. I sometimes do this to other people's RfCs, because without one, you might get an RfC entry like this. I also fix invalid parameters in the {{rfc}} template, when I notice something being added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that some of what Godsy is concerned about is currently proper under existing policies and guidelines (though I certainly disagree with the manner in which that was expressed in some of his examples). Whether it should be proper is — perhaps — a different issue for discussion, but I was also indirectly pointing out that a change here at RFC might not be enough unless a corresponding change is made at TPG. We can certainly set down an elaborate set of standards by which RFC's are to be conducted, but my first question would be whether it's really needed. Is this a big problem? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC) PS: And let me note that this is also partially dealt with under the fifth bullet point here at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs #1. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I added some clarifications, marked by brackets, to my opening comment. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@TransporterMan and Redrose64: Thanks for the input, which has led me to think further on the matter:
I believe adding a bullet to Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding with something along the lines of the following wording would address the majority of my concerns:
If you don't find any of the numbered or lettered options presented within a survey RfC agreeable, you may add your own within reason in an appropriate manner. Please keep the scope of the RfC in mind, avoid disrupting the RfC, and take care not to add too many options as to avoid a trainwreck. The closer to the beginning of the RfC, the better.

Basic examples of appropriately adding an option

Options:

1. The image should be 50px.
2. The image should be 100px.
3. The image should be removed.
4. The image should be 75px. (added by Example user 2 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC))

–Example user 1 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

OR

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Options:

1. The image should be 50px.
2. The image should be 100px.
3. The image should be removed.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

–Example user 1 (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

4. The image should be 75px.

−Example user 2 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It could use some polishing. I think it would go well below what is currently bullet five of the Suggestions for responding section. I also think bullet five could be extended to say "or add your own neutral statement and format directly below the originators" in some form to cover question (non-option) RfCs. I think these changes would make it clearer to users that just because one starts an RfC, doesn't mean they own it. The quotes I provided in my opening comment are from longstanding experienced editors; I wouldn't be so concerned as to propose something like this if the quotes were from new inexperienced users. What do you think? If you guys think it's a good idea, I'll formally propose it. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of suggesting this kind of editing of the request, with its implication that everyone has the same right as the originator to choose what is being requested.

First, I'd like to reinforce TransporterMan's observation about talk page guidelines controlling this. An RfC is just a talk page post with extra advertising, and a label that clarifies what kind of discussion the poster is trying to start. If the "RfC" label weren't used, would you feel justified in modifying someone's talk page post to ask a different question?

Second, I believe modifying the request, including adding options, can severely hamper an RfC's ability to reach a useful conclusion. As it is, most RfCs I read have many comments that ignore the stated request and go off on all sorts of tangents, including choosing options that aren't in the list. And that's bad. But at least the originator has a chance of getting the consensus he wants as long as his RfC description stands.

Editing the RfC description is fine by me as a suggestion to the originator, if you think there's a good chance he'll consider it an improvement, but the originator should own the substance of the request. If you think there's a better question to be asked and the RfC originator still likes his, you can post your own RfC and encourage people to ignore the first one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: "If the "RfC" label weren't used, would you feel justified in modifying someone's talk page post to ask a different question?" – No I wouldn't; the RfC opening should comply with WP:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, whereas other posts aren't held to that standard. That aside, I largely disagree with your latter two paragraphs, but I appreciate the reply. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Default RfC duration and the reason for it

The page used to say that the default duration of an RfC is 30 days because a bot is programmed to close it after that time. User:Mike Peel changed it to say the default duration is 30 days and a bot is programmed to close it after that time, but removing the conjunction "because" connecting the two. The edit summary says the bot programming is not a valid reason that RfCs last that long.

I reverted that change; I think there's just some kind of confusion over the interpretation of these words. "Default" means what happens if no one does anything to make it different. If no one does anything to close an Rfc earlier or extend it later, the bot will automatically close it at 30 days, so I believe the bot is what makes the default 30 days.

But I can see one might look to a deeper cause, like why the bot is programmed that way or why people sometimes choose to let it have its way.

I think it's important for the page to show the bot programming is what makes the default 30 days. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot does not close it - it removes the RfC listing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

They're both OK. Mike Peel's version is slightly better IMO. It has two short statements of fact: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days. The RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time" which is fine. "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time" is just slightly confusing because "because" has different meanings, and it seems like you're getting into questions of cause and effect... If you're going to have "because" then maybe "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because we have found this to be the optimal length" is more what the reader would expect. It's not like there's a random bot that delists RfC after 30 days and we can't turn it off, and therefore RfC last 30 days, and could interpret the passage that way. Most people can probably figure it out OK either way, though. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that Legobot (talk · contribs) uses 30 days because that's what RFC bot (talk · contribs) did. RFC bot was operated by Harej (talk · contribs), who is still around.

About a year ago I figured out what Legobot did with {{rfc}}s. Omitting actions not directly relevant here, it looks for the five-character sequence "{{rfc" and assumes that this sequence introduces an open RFC. It does that even if this is not the {{rfc}} template and even if inside HTML comment markers  or is enclosed in <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. From that point, it looks for a valid timestamp, and checks that to see if it is more than thirty days ago. If it is, it removes everything from that {{rfc to the next occurrence of the two characters "}}" inclusive.

Legobot also maintains a database of open RfCs, keyed by the value of the |rfcid= parameter. If that value is not found in any open RfC (usually because it's just removed the {{rfc}} template), it removes the similarly-coded entry from the RfC listing pages such as WP:RFC/BIO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit appears to be the introduction of the 30 days language in the WP:RFC documentation. Going back further, this edit to my bot's user page from 2007 is the earliest reference I can find to the idea, and this edit is me acknowledging the change. Given that I could not find any reference to the 30-day period before an edit in 2008 that acknowledged that the period was a function of how the bot work, I am led to believe that auto-expiry after 30 days is to prevent the accumulation of old clutter on the RFC lists, rather than some kind of socially relevant rule. And since the beginning, people were always welcome to extend RFCs as they saw fit. Harej (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(As an aside, I have to say it's a complete trip to research a project you embarked on ten years ago. Welcome to growing old.) Harej (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding semantics, Alanscottwalker is correct; the bot merely removes it from the list. As I recall, closing the discussion requires some kind of discretion, whether to come to a decision or even if just to say "this has gone on long enough." I would say the removal from the list is more clerical in nature than embodying some kind of decisive action. Harej (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Further comment: There are too many RfC's about too many things, with too many varieties for any actual agreement on the "optimal" time -- 30 day default because that is when it's delisted therefore is what is left, it will either scroll off in the archive or get closed, maybe. But there are some that will be closed sooner than thirty days, and that can be fine too, because it is just a technical measure for not having stale RFC's backlogging the list. In short, I think "because" is generally useful, here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I made the change because it's like saying "Apples are green because the one I have is green" - it may be true, but it's not the fundamental reason. The duration must have been decided first, and then that's what was set in the bot's code; the bot cannot be the cause of that duration. I really didn't think this would be a controversial change to make - it just seemed like a bit of copyediting that needed doing! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I suspected it was some kind of causation ambiguity like this, but this particular analogy, I cannot see. This text does not say the default duration is 30 days because I have one RfC whose default duration is 30 days. The default duration of every RfC is 30 days. Legobot guarantees that. Having a green apple doesn't guarantee that all apples are green (and in fact they aren't).

I expected you would use an analogy more like a parent saying, "you can't have a cookie because I said so." It's true, but is not an answer to the child's question, "why can't I have a cookie." But at least "the default duration is 30 days because the bot delists it" isn't superfluous like the cookie statement, because the reader may not know that the bot is the proximate cause of the RfC ending at 30 days. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that's right. Because is a kind of complicated word and I'm not a semantician, but to my mind you can lump "because I said so" and "because the bot delists it" as both describing proximate causes without explaining anything, without addressing the underlying cause. "Because a cookie will spoil your appetite if ingested now, and this will suppress your ingestion of soon-to-be-served desirable healthy foods, in turn having long-term negative health effects if continued as a general policy" and "because otherwise the lists would become too filled with RfC in which discussion has died" seem to go together as phrases which at least come closer to describing the real "because". Avoiding the sematic traps of "because" is my main reason for preferring Mike Peel's version. Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe you're not seeing the missing information that I do, because I find that "because the bot delists it" does explain something. The reader probably doesn't know that the default duration of an RfC is 30 days because a bot edits the page at that point (like the child knows that he can't have the cookie because the parent says so). The mechanics of how RfCs work are really pretty obscure to people, which is why we have to be explicit about these things. But yes, there is a whole chain of causation both before and and after the bot editing the page, so I can see how someone might want to focus on some other part of the chain as the cause. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alanscottwalker for correcting my terminology; there is indeed a huge difference between an RfC being delisted (ended) and the discussion being closed.

Well, hate to be even more language proscriptive, but de-listing is not "ended" (to the extent that "ended" implies, 'no further comments allowed'). It's open or closed, and it's listed, or listed no longer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't read "ended" as "no further comments allowed." That's exactly what "closed" means. I read "ended" as "RfC no longer exists." We usually define an RfC as a discussion that is listed on RfC pages, so after delisting, the discussion, even if it is still open and active, is no longer an RfC. The section in question is all about RfCs ending and it does seem to use the term that way.

Maybe we should define terms and the various states of RfCs more rigorously on the page? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Question about changing categories

If an RfC's category is changed (well more categories getting added) after Legobot lists it, how would that get reflected on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All? Thanks. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^тʌʟк 00:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You may need to wait a while, or to WP:PURGE the page if you don't want to wait, but it's all handled automatically. The category pages are just transcluded onto the /All page, so changes to any category page will appear in the /All page as soon as the server notices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are three stages to this.

Legobot needs to notice that you have added a category parameter to the {{rfc}} template: it's very picky - any new category params, such as |bio, need to be added before the |rfcid= parameter if one is present (if they're after the |rfcid=, it simply won't notice them); and if you are removing one or more category params (whether you are adding some or not) it is also necessary to remove any |rfcid= parameter at the same time. If you remove a |rfcid= parameter, never add in your own value as it will confuse Legobot.
When Legobot next visits the page (usually once an hour, at xx:00 or xx:01) it will add a fresh |rfcid= parameter if there isn't one already and will update the primary RfC listings like WP:RFC/BIO.
At some point the Job queue|job queue will update WP:RFC/A.

In short: if you notice that WP:RFC/BIO is updated, but WP:RFC/A is not, you can WP:PURGE the latter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Need some help

I tried to create a navbox for Outline of scientific method, curently this project continue in my sandbox, you can see a prototye of my navbox belew,(26/4/2017)

for finish this project i need some help,

i think my workflow have some scienfic issu but i don't know where of it?
i think there's more keywords i can put in this nawbox but i don't know what are them?Polonium talk 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- Do outlines even need navboxes? Don't they function themselves as hierarchical, list-form navboxes with a brief description of each term? (This may be a silly question, as I have not encountered many outlines at all on Wikipedia and do not have much experience with how they are supposed to be formatted.) Double sharp (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  - @Double sharp: In first i desided to creat a navbox for Scientific method page, but i decided to put it in a outline for experience and fix all issues then use it for wikipedia too important article Scientific method,Polonium talk 00:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@POLONIUM: This is not a WT:RFC matter: this talk page is for discussing the Requests for comment page and anything related to its purposes and tasks. A much better place would be WP:HD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64:Thanks, i understood and started new discussion in here.Polonium talk 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying Ending Rfcs section

I have rewritten the "Ending RfCs" section to clarify most of the issues brought up in the recent "Default RfC duration and the reason for it" and "Bot removing ... Rfc - is this normal" discussions. I make a clear distinction between RfCs and discussions and between ending an RfC, ending a discussion, and closing a discussion. I remove the ambiguous "because" wording altogether. I explain some of the mechanics of how we interact with Legobot. I try to avoid duplicating general discussion closing information (which has its own page).

I believe I've captured the consensus of these discussions and didn't add anything new, but please advise. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I like most of the changes, but I went back to the "way we close" instead of "reasons we close" approach. ("Reasons we close" will lead to lots of "you don't have a Proper Valid Reason™ to close this RFC while I think my side is losing!" disputes.) I also tried to strip as much of the "closing" jargon as I could. Partly this is because it's just jargon, which means that new people won't understand it, but partly that's because experienced editors are unclear about whether that means "writing a summary statement" or "slapping a blue archive box around it so that people will stop talking". (This page means the former, not the latter.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your change undoes an important part of the primary purpose of the clarification in saying, "There are several ways that RfCs end," and then listing a bunch of reasons that people end RfCs. There was some real terminology confusion, which you see in the foregoing discussions, which deserves to be eliminated. An RfC ends in exactly one way: someone (or some thing) removes the RfC tag from the page. The items in the list just give guidance as to when someone should do that, or expect to see someone else do it. Without this clarity, there are various other ways someone might interpret "ending" of an RfC and get confused. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that this is better, or at least less bad? (Please {{ping}} me; I didn't mean to leave this discussion sitting for so long.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yes, that is better. Thank you. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Most difficult RfCs to close

Over time, I have seen RfC discussions that require more than one closer to close discussions, like Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 and recently Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. A month ago, the community discussed some tool called "Wikum" used for difficult RfCs, but I don't know whether there is still enthusiasm for the Wikum tool. Anyway, I wonder whether RfC can handle more complex issues. If so, why do those discussions need two or more closers? If not, what can we do about complex issues? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about with discussions requiring more than one closer. I saw in the first example that two editors signed the closing statement, but I didn't see any evidence that was required. The second example is too long to read through, but nothing jumped out at me about multiple closers being required. Can you be more specific? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

All right.... Here goes the evidence about Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. I did ask one of the proposers at a user talk page about relisting the discussion. However, the proposer said that re-requesting closure at WP:AN after requesting it for the first time at WP:ANRFC would be better suggestion.

The "second" example is not an example of requiring more than one closer. That one was about merely using a tool interactive to summarize complex RfC discussions. I'll replace that example with another second example, Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy, which is still open. I asked the proposer about the closure; the proposer said to go for three-person closure. I requested it at WP:AN. Waiting for volunteers was taking days to complete, yet the results are pending. George Ho (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

When you said "be more specific", Bryan, do you also mean background of those discussions? George Ho (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted some indication of what you meant by multiple closers being required. Before today, I had never heard of someone requesting multiple closers at an administrator notice board. I just looked over WP:Closing discussions, and it doesn't mention that practice. I see in your references two examples of someone suggesting requesting multiple closers, but I guess I lack the background to see in what way the discussion required that, as you say. Perhaps one person closed it and someone else refused to accept the closer's summary, and that person would supposedly accept a multiple-person closing? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

To answer the question from the end of your response, some closures may require teamwork. It's not like one objects the others' rationale. Actually, two or more closers would summarize the discussion together like a collaboration. For background regarding the first example, the pending changes (PC) protection, "a tool used to suppress vandalism and certain other recurrent nuisances on Wikipedia while allowing a good-faith user to submit an edit for review," started as a series of separate trials and originally had two types of pending changes: level-1 (suppressing edits mostly by IPs) and level-2 (suppressing edits by non-admins, including editors). WP:PCRFC shows a timeline of discussions about usage of "pending changes". Regarding lv-2 PC-protection, the consensus at Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1 was split, resulting in "no consensus", defaulting to no longer using PC2 indefinitely. Supports favored the protection, while opposers pointed out complexities and potential abuse of the protection. Some RfCs proposed implementations of the PC2-protection but failed, especially the latest example. After that latest failed attempt, the consensus agreed to remove the PC2 from En wiki.

The second example describes "a discrepancy between outing policy, and the WMF's new essay on paid editing." I don't know much about "paid editing", but I read that undisclosed "paid editing" is discouraged due to potential harmful effects on the project. The latest discussion is an attempt to correct the contradictions between the two. That's all I can say about it. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

We use three closers (almost always three admins) if and only if an RFC involves a hotly contested change to an important policy, guideline, or procedure. The reason we do that is that the practice inhibits disruption from people who "lost" and want to have the discussion re-re-re-closed until the Right™ result is produced. When we have a contentious RFC underway, we don't want it dragged out and endlessly re-hashed with cries of "That admin was biased against my side because of a comment he made eight years ago!" or "NACs shouldn't close discussions like this!" Socially, it's very difficult to convince people that all three admins were biased (especially if the three admins were chosen in advance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Bot removing (rather than just delisting) RfC -- is this normal?

here we have User:Legobot (a bot) removing the RfC template from a discussion, with an edit summary of "Removing expired RFC template". I could be dead wrong, but is this a new thing? I don't remember seeing this before. This is different from delisting, removing the RfC from the list of open RfC, which is (at least arguably) functional on the grounds of preventing the list from becoming too cluttered.

What's the upside here? New behavior or no, is this desirable bot behavior? For many (although not all) RfC you want somebody -- often an admin, but at any rate an experienced disinterested editor -- to come along eventually and weigh the discussion and provide a decision. Doesn't removing the RfC template reduce the likelihood of that to about zero? Herostratus (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Herostratus: That's correct - 12:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC) is more than thirty days ago, so the RfC is expired, so Legobot removes the {{rfc}} template. It is the lack of an {{rfc}} template on the discussion page that then triggers the removal from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is how Legobot has operated for as long as it's been working on RfCs (at least three and a half years).

Consensus is often evident after thirty days, but if you need an independent closer, you can file a request at WP:AN/RFC#RfCs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And to be clear about the mechanics of RfCs: the only effect that presence of the {{rfc}} tag has on the likelihood of someone closing the discussion is that it causes the RfC to be included in the lists of RfCs. If the discussion is not listed (which means there is no RfC), the only way a non-participant is going to close the discussion is if someone asks at the administrator notice board (supra) or someone just stumbles into it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's true. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean, actually, the whole process seems kludgy and actually broken in several ways. I had just a terrible time with a recent pair of RfC, although this was mainly due to the (quite unnecessarily aggressive, but that's a different issue) archive bots moving them to hard-to-find places. (I have since learned of somewhat obscure {{Do not archive until}}, which IMO ought to be automatically included in the RfC header, e.g. {{subst:DNAU|30}}.)

(Speaking of kludgy, this page actually says "RfC may be extended beyond 30 days or re-listed by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date". Editors are told to edit a timestamp (!) which pollutes the integrity of the page and in most cases would result in replies to the proposal being timestamped as having occurred before the proposal was posted.)

It just makes no actual sense to remove the header from an RfC and convert it to a regular discussion thread. It's not a regular discussion thread, and if the person who made it wanted it to be, they could have made it one. They didn't. If they wanted a decision they should get one, or at least the chance of someone finding it and rendering a decision.

If it is desired to remove an RfC from the "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/XXX" list (to avoid over-cluttering the list) we can do this without removing the header.

So here's my three-point program:

Unclosed RfC ready for closing ought to be listed automatically, and not dependent on the random factor of whether someone makes the effort to ask for them to be closed.
And the criteria of "ready for closing" should possibly be "X days since the last post" rather than "30 days since creation". (This is debatable though.)
And they shouldn't be archived until they are closed.

This doesn't mean that RfC shouldn't be removed from "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/XXX" lists after a specified time has passed (30 days from creation or whatever). They should.

But after the 30 days has passed, the RfC should be promoted to the next step which is "OK, ready to close!", not demoted to obscurity and, ultimately, the silent tomb of the archive. This could all be done in code I'm sure. Herostratus (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving bots don't know about RfCs, for the most part they're instructed to archive threads where a certain time has elapsed since the last datestamped post, and if this certain time happens to be less than thirty days (as with WP:VPR, which is archived after seven days of inactivity), an RfC may well be archived before its due time (example).

Legobot (talk · contribs) doesn't work in collaboration with the archiving bots either, it assumes that any RfC that gets archived is to be terminated early, so it simply removes the {{rfc}} (example) with the result that the RfC gets delisted early (example).

If extending an RfC, you don't need to alter a timestamp, you can insert one that is more recent. The essential thing to remember is that Legobot (talk · contribs) looks for the first timestamp after the {{rfc}}, and looks no further down the thread: it uses that timestamp not just to determine the start-time from which the thirty day period is calculated, but also as the terminator of the RfC statement. So if a relisting comment is added at the bottom of the thread (as is done with XfDs), its timestamp is simply ignored; the timestamp is also ignored if a relisting comment is added prior to the {{rfc}}; and since Legobot also assumes that everything between the {{rfc}} and the next timestamp constitutes the whole of the RfC statement, a relisting comment shouldn't be inserted between the {{rfc}} and the RfC statement either. This was understood perfectly by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) when making this edit which had this effect. Since Legobot looks no further down the thread than the first timestamp after the {{rfc}}, it simply doesn't care about how recent the last post to the thread was.

Regarding "Unclosed RfC ready for closing ought to be listed automatically" - this would go against WP:AN/RFC:

Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

which is amplified at WP:RFCEND as

Formal requests for closure can be posted by any participant at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

Regarding point 2 - this would require a change to Legobot, and it is so difficult to get even blatantly-detrimental bugs to be fixed that an enhancement has pretty much zero chance. It has proven much more effective to observe how Legobot operates, and work around its quirks, than to wait fruitlessly for a reply from the botop (where bugs are involved, blocking Legobot pending a fix is out of the question, it does so much useful work in other areas that there would be serious outcry; and we can't even be sure that Legobot would restart if unblocked).

Regarding point 3 - getting an archiving bot amended is probably easier than getting Legobot amended. But the problem here is that there are several archiving bots, the main ones are ClueBot III (talk · contribs) and Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs); there are also user scripts that perform archiving on an on-demand basis, such as OneClickArchiver. Also, since manual archiving is always a possibility, there is also a possibility that agreed conventions for keeping the RfC live until formally closed (including any {{DNAU}} that might be present) will be ignored.

The present system - with its inherent problems - has stood for long enough that many people are used to how it operates, even if they are not entirely happy with those methods. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for answering in such detail. You make it kind of sound like we are under the rule of an evil robot, though.

I don't think that OneClickArchiver (usually used on talk pages I think, and in any case subject to human decision) and manual archiving are much of an issue on article talk pages. So I figured that at least one thing that could be done is to propose adding {{DNAU|40}} to {{rfc}} (30 days + 10 for good measure). This wouldn't stop manual archiving etc. but would stop most archiving. But come to find out the robot doesn't look inside {{rfc}}.

Of course one can put {{DNAU|40}} outside the {{rfc}} (I think). But you have to know to do that.

If Legobot is not very open to improvements, that's not a very satisfactory state of affairs, as a practical matter and also as a matter of principle. I mean, what you're saying is... suppose we had a huge RfC and decided that 30 days was too short and wasn't working, that 45 days would be better. Big RfC, 58-9 in favor of changing to 45 days, let's say. We still couldn't do it. Right? We could ask, is all, but quite possibly futilely. This strikes me as a non-excellent way to run a software operation.

But thanks for your attention. Herostratus (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You do seem to want to elevate the RfC process to something more than it is; or maybe you think it already is and is just implemented incorrectly. In talking about decisions on RfCs, you make it sound like an arbitration; in fact, the only decision a closer makes is what he thinks is the consensus demonstrated in the discussion. It's quite common for the closing statement to be, "There is no consensus here and it doesn't look like there is going to be." I don't believe the creator of an RfC necessarily wants someone to close the discussion, and I don't think RfCs are much different from non-RfC discussions in their closability.

The 30 day automatic termination is just recognition that after that much time, the discussion is probably over and nobody cared enough to close it.

I think an RfC is just a request for comment. It's something you do to invite a broad audience to participate in a discussion. One reason to do that is that any consensus reached that way is bound to carry more weight with editors than one in a local discussion. But it's not an arbitration.

As for the "ready to close" listing, that's really what the RfC listing itself is. Editors are supposed to go to listed discussions and either contribute, or if they find the discussion appears to be complete, close it. I've done that many times. If RfCs are surviving until LegoBot terminates them, it's because there aren't enough editors to close them all, so a separate automatic "it's been X days, someone please close this" listing probably wouldn't help. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, I hear what you're saying.

It occurs to me that there are two pretty different uses for RfC -- one is indeed just to talk things over, and maybe throw around some draft ideas, get some more voices on a subject, and so on. You usually don't need separate "Survey" and "Threaded discussion" sections for these (although sometimes you do), and the main purpose of the RfC tag is just to give the discussion some more visibility, I guess. There are a lot of RfC like this and I've made some myself.

But then, lot of RfC are formatted as a "yes-no" proposition (indeed the example on this page is "Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship?", with a separate "Survey" section for "voting" as well as "Threaded discussion" section). The example RfC does need to be adjudicated in some way by somebody -- you're going to end up with the photograph of the ship in the article or not (or some other outcome, such as using a different photo or making a gallery instead, but still: an outcome). A lot of times it doesn't need to be formally closed (with the Archive top etc.) since its stone obvious what the answer is, or for other reasons (there's just no interest in the proposition, or it is withdrawn or become moot or whatever), but a lot of times closing with Archive top and some description of the decision is called for. Sometimes that doesn't happen and the effort of the discussion is kind of wasted since no decision is made either way, so that's not ideal.

If there aren't enough editors to close them all, a separate automatic "it's been X days, someone please close this" listing possibly could help if it was in date order and editors could pick from the top. But granted, the WP:ANI list does exactly that. But it's not automated, which I'm saying maybe it should be.

Probably really the two kinds of RfC are different enough that they ought to have different procedures -- {{rfc-visibility}} and {{rfc-decision}}, say. Both would be listed in the RfC lists, but beyond that the process and handling and endgame would be different. There are a lot of interesting things a bot could do here if you had two separate types. But this would a lot of heavy lifting, so it's pie-in-the-sky I guess -- if it even is a good idea, which it might not be. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I'd like to see is instead of an RfC-for-decision, an RfA-for-content (Request for Arbitration). But Wikipedia policy makes it clear that arbitration of article content does not exist. Consensus is all we have. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A recent example of an RfC not needing formal closure is Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command#RfC:New article for 1979 false alarm? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

One step in mitigating this would be to edit the relevant pages about closing RFCs to indicate that any editor, even an involved editor, may close an RFC that is about to have the RFC header automatically removed, purely to memorialize the fact that an RFC occurred. The reason (impending header removal) and result (no uninvolved editor willing to close) should be stated. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, on your comment about the "threaded discussion" example: I asked whether that should stay on the page a while ago, and there was no support for having anything except the simplest example. Perhaps it should be removed again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

For my part don't think it should be removed. I think separate Survey and Threaded Discussion sections work fine for many (not all) RfC. After all, whether formally hatted and closed or not, many (not all) RfC want to end up with some decision, some change to or affirmation of some element of an article. Two separate sections aids in discerning what the consensus is, otherwise it can get rather inchoate.

If you want to dispense with that example, run a full RfC here. But you should include Survey and Threaded Discussion sections. Which would kind of undercut your point... Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the format; it's one of several that work well for certain types of discussions. I'm not sure that this form, which encourages vote-counting, should necessarily be prioritized over the other alternatives, and it's probably unnecessary for the majority of RFCs anyway.

(It seems to me that the wikilawyer way is to require the RFC for inclusion, since it was added without any discussion [again: it's been removed a couple of times, but the same editor comes back every couple of years to restore it].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I don't know. Maybe on RfC on the proposition "Should we have an RfC on...". It's a matter of "stable version" I guess. If the same editor comes back, swat it down WP:BRD grounds. But then maybe she is restoring it on WP:BRD grounds. My take is that anything that isn't reverted pretty quickly becomes the current stable version... so it's there now, and too late to revert it on WP:BRD grounds, so a proper discussion and consensus would be required, I think... Herostratus (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a proper discussion when it was re-added again; only one person replied (and also gently opposed inclusion). When we count your view and assume hers, we're evenly divided.

(I don't think that BRD [which is optional anyway] has anything to do with it. I think that she restores it because it's her favorite and having it on this page makes it quick and easy for her to copy the format and to recommend it to others – not an unreasonable view – and then other people remove it because having two detailed wikitext examples seems excessive.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral questions

In the WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief section, we say this about neutrality:

If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise.

It's my impression that most editors either don't read that or don't understand it. I think that it might be helpful to include a sentence or two about what to do if you think that someone else has written a non-neutral RFC statement (hint: the answer is not to declare that the RFC is invalid). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The reaction depends on how badly the RFC was worded. I've speedily closed RFCs which were hopelessly compromised. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which does happen on occasion, and that complicates improving the docs. It's long been my experience, on the other hand, that a majority of RFCs are close enough to neutral that they can still produce a productive conversation (or, at least as productive as realistically possible). Is that your experience, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the objection people have to non-neutral questions is that they make it harder to have a productive conversation; it's my experience that people tend to ignore the specific question and just discuss the topic and that they read a lot more than the question before contributing. I think people are just offended by having their views belittled by a question worded in a way that assumes their position is wrong. Non-neutral questions offend me even when I'm not involved and don't have a position, because of the lack of consideration the author shows for opposing views.

I'll give you a (made-up) example: "Should this actor's insignificant community theater award be listed in the article?" The question appears to be biased against including the community theater award. But the commenters are not actually going to answer that question (which is unanswerable for anyone who believes the award is significant). Instead, they'll address the question, "is this actor's community theater award significant enough to include it?" But it's still offensive that the RfC framer implies one side in the significance debate is obviously wrong. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We're taking it as read that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously wrong, right? ;-)

What's I'd like to stop is the ritual posturing about "This RFC is invalid because the question is non-neutral!" In my experience, this argument usually appears when a respondent disagrees with the OP and believes that "his side" is going to "lose". This happens all the time – at hundreds of RFCs.

Here's an example from last year: "How should the current news story regarding the question over [BLP's] awards be presented in the article?" The OP listed two sets of options for possible sources and invited comment on those two sets. The OP opposed one set as being unreliable.

Does that sound like a non-neutral question to you? It doesn't to me.

But this question drew responses such as "the language of this laughable RfC is completely dishonest" and "one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen".

Why couldn't the critics have followed the OP's lead and said they thought both possible sources were unreliable? I honestly don't know. What I know is that they decided to expend a lot of energy on the perceived non-neutrality of the RFC question instead. I am guessing that they wanted to see "Option 1, Option 2, and None of the Above" explicitly spelled out.

It's this kind of sideshow that I want to discourage. If you're glancing through the RFC list and find something interesting, then I don't want you to look at it and run away because people are being rude and arguing about whether editors like you are too stupid to think that the set of valid answers to "How should this be presented?" could include "Probably not at all, and definitely not with those sources".

I think that one way to improve this situation is to provide a small amount of soft guidance about what to do when you're not the OP, and you're panicked because you think that people will disagree with you. It might help, and I don't think that it will hurt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The advice to make the RfC statement neutral is good, but the effect of not following it isn't to make the RfC invalid, it just makes it of lower quality. And nobody should debate, in the RfC discussion, whether the statement is neutral. I would say the best response to an RfC statement you find to be non-neutral would be to ignore the fact, unless you think it might actually subconsciously bias a commenter, in which case you should add something to the discussion to make commenters conscious of that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC at International Justice Mission/Legobot

The Request for comment template at International Justice Mission was twice removed by Legobot (in April, and once in May) before there was any conclusion to the RfC, which received a fair amount of responses. Is there anyone here who can review the discussion and determine if consensus was reached? You can review the discussion here. I have a conflict of interest with the article, as I disclosed on the Talk page. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the Requests for comment page and its subject. For information on how to request that someone close a discussion, see WP:Closing discussions#Closure procedure.

By the way, in case it isn't clear, Legobot automatically removes the tag after 30 days, because that usually means the discussion has gone stale and no one bothered to close it or otherwise remove the tag. Ideally, someone determines before that that no further comment is needed and removes the tag manually. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC an AFD

Is it not possible to add an RfC to an AfD discussion (like this [1]), especially if the Afd discussion is a test case and I feel input from the wider community would might help overcome a mere local consensus? Must XfD discussions only be handled by regulars? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean add an RFC tag to an AfD discussion, in other words make the AfD simultaneously an RfC. No, they should be separate things. RfC discussions are supposed to be on talk pages, and there should be a new discussion started specifically for an RfC. AfD discussions need not be handled only by regulars - newcomers are welcome and their opinions valued, but they must be handled by people who choose to participate in AfD discussions, and those people are presumably already doing that without the help of RfC publicity.

I don't know what you mean by test case, but if you mean you the article in question is supposed to be an example to clarify the deletion policy, then an RfC on the deletion policy (discussed on that policy's talk page, or that of one of the pages that seeks to clarify it) would be the way to do that instead. Citing examples of past application of policy hardly ever works on Wikipedia to win an argument about a current application. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: an AfD, like all other XfDs, is by its very nature a "request for comment", albeit one with rather narrow boundaries - we are inviting people to comment on whether or not the article should be kept/merged/redirected/incubated/transwikied/renamed/userfied/deleted. So adding {{rfc}} as well is at best redundant, at worst disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be kind of like MfD'ing an AfD or something... besides which, on the merits, with all due respect this seems like the most obscure and unimportant-whether-it-exists-or-not page I can imagine, so this'd be the worst case for more publicity I would think. Herostratus (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You think nothing is less worth worrying about than WP:Linkrot ? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: Take a look at how it showed up in the RfC listings (permalink) - it's out of context, and looks like a drive-by posting. I'm not casting doubt upon Doncram's opinion, which is satisfactory when considered as part of the AfD; but when used to initiate an RfC the comment doesn't fit in with WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. Tavix (talk · contribs) was correct to remove the {{rfc}} template. If you want to hold an RfC about the article, please do so on the article's talk page; if you want it to be broad in its compass, it's best held somewhere like WP:VPR, or (since you mentioned WP:Linkrot) it could be held at WT:Linkrot with a note linking there from VPR. But wherever you hold it, it should be written and formatted in accordance with WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to wrongly denigrate the effort, I apparently misunderstood the situation. I thought it was about whether Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) should exist or not, and since there are only two possible targets for "Banco de Ponce", then either Banco de Ponce is going to be the primary topic with a hatnote pointing to the other use, or else Banco de Ponce will be a disambiguation page... either way, Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) will have no incoming links and almost never be accessed, so whether it exists or not doesn't matter much. I guess I misunderstood and it has something to to with linkrot on external links or something, so, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This why we actually need to talk about things at the risk of appearing to badger every single !voter. "Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) will have no incoming links" is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. "Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links." Also redirects should not be deleted if " You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect."... there was an article at that title so it's likely there are external links from mirrors or whatever. Reasons for not deleting #5 is also worth investigation if you really insist on deleting the redirect. However you think "whether it exists or not doesn't matter much", so it's puzzling that you will go to so much effort to get them deleted when they are so WP:CHEAP to keep. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you need to talk about things: but there is a place for everything. Discussions concerning the content of a page belong on the talk page of that page, in this case it would be Talk:Banco de Ponce (disambiguation). Discussions concerning whether to keep/delete/etc. a page belong at WP:XFD, in this case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation). Discussions concerning whether WP:Linkrot should be amended belong at WT:Linkrot.

Since you clearly have reasons for not deleting the page Banco de Ponce (disambiguation), the place for those views is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation), and not here - and not in an RfC either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

By coming here I finally managed to elicit some reasoning from Herostratus, I have had almost no luck at all eliciting reasoning from ~~!voters~~ voters in the Afd. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Giraffedata and Herostratus: This was resumed at 11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC) by Siuenti (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Why not RFC on XFDs?. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Request for comment

FYI

I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Information Regarding Kolkata Football Clubs

Following Pages getting added with incorrect information Mohun Bagan A.C. Kolkata Derby

3 incorrect information is being added 1. Reference of "National Club" title for Mohun Bagan. Under Right to Information Act of Indian Government I have got reply that no Indian club is national club. 2 About First Derby match between East Bengal and Mohun Bagan 3.Head to Head records between two clubs. In this respect I am provding 3 authentic links ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] I am modifying the 2 pages but wrong information is being added repeatedly. I welcome discussion and debate regarding this. Rony DasguptaDasgupta.rony (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

References

@Dasgupta.rony: You are almost certainly in the wrong place. This is not the page to ask for assistance; it is the talk page for discussing improvements to the project page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you have a problem with the content of an article, you should bring up the matter at the talk page for that specific article - for the two that you mention, these are Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C. and Talk:Kolkata Derby respectively. There is more information at Wikipedia:Questions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

New templates for !voters!

I made these 2 templates: {{botsummoned}} and {{Botsum}} so that when !voting you woudn't have to type out (Summoned by bot) by hand. Its more of a convienence thing than a necessity. However, both templates output nearly the same text. Which one is better, the longer name or the shorter name?

{{botsummoned}} displays (Summoned by bot)

{{Botsum}} displays (Summoned by bot).

Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Where are we presently advised to note that we were summoned? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 No where, as far as I know. I have seen it used often by many users in nearly every RFC I've participated for some time, so I thought this would make it more convinient. I suppose some people might use to ward off possible canvas/meatpuppeting allegations. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. Yes it's often polite and good protocol to say you were bot summoned, for various reasons (it's not always necessary and is never required). Sure the templates are fine. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus Thanks for the input, do you feel one is superior to the other? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Botsum}} in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all necessary to say why you arrived at an RfC discussion. RfCs are open invitations for anybody to weigh in, and intentionally so: that's the point. WP:RFC says, right at the top, "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input ... RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion ... It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors." It's clear that commenting in an RfC is not restricted to a given page's in-crowd. People interested in biographies might have WP:RFC/BIO on their watchlist, and this is not bad practice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all that, and sometimes these statements sound like the person is justifying participating in the RfC, which is wrong, but I understand why people do this: People have a hard time believing their mindset is not everyone else's too, so when the consensus in a discussion goes against them, they often suspect cheating. When every stranger is on the same side of an argument, these folks suspect the strangers were canvassed and as a result, don't respect the consensus. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you really mean to ask which name is better? I prefer the longer name - easier to remember, but the longer expansion - easier to understand. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Example of a bad question

The little "Good questions"/"Bad questions" box in the "Statement should be neutral and brief" section is nice but it should have an example of a question that violates the neutrality requirement. Usually this takes the form where the nominator indicates their own response to the question as well as the question itself. Does anyone object if I add under Bad questions "Should the highly unsuitable picture in the lead be changed? Zero^talk 01:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot not running properly?

The Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy was transferred from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) due to page size. However, the Legobot hasn't updated the list subpage of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" yet. I noticed that the listing still links to the WP:VPP. Also, the bot's owner Legoktm (talk · contribs), whom I invited, is less than active lately. What can be done about this? --George Ho (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 copied the |rfcid= parameter, something that should never be done - it is used by Legobot as a unique key and so Legobot assumed that the discussion was still in the old place. This edit will force Legobot to update its data table, also the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And I see that Legobot added the rfcid number. I'll let Legoktm about this to disregard the issue. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Redrose64. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Mz7 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Smartmatic

I am requesting for comment on queries and edits I posted on the talk page of the article Smartmatic. I am a journalist researching the topic of voting and I came across this article and realized much of the information listed was incorrect and the sources provided were either dead links, or did not exist. As an editor, I took it upon myself to correct those facts. After making the edits, use ZiaLater reverted them to his/her version of the article without explanation. Each edit I contributed was listed in the talk section prior so other editors could comment. ZiaLater did not comment or disagree with the edits. Rather, he/she reverted the edits without explanation days after I asked for comment. He/she has also questioned my credibility because I live in the Philippines and accused me of whitewashing. I am requesting other Wikipedia editors to review the queries I posted in the talk page and provide consensus on the edits. Thank you! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Carriedelvalle23: You're posting on the wrong page. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the project page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you have a dispute with another editor, advice may be found at WP:DR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about venue for Wikipedian in Residence issue

In regards to this, should I start an RfC or take this to another venue? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I see two things in "this": 1) question as to whether the Andrew Orlowski piece is a reliable source; 2) question as to whether the article has a non-neutral point of view. There's also a sideways reference to conflict of interest, but from the associated edit history, I think that's actually been resolved.

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard are better places for those than an RfC. People interested in these tricky technical issues know to find them there. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd do WP:RSN for the specific issue of whether the source is appropriate in this context. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Advice on closing discussions

Hi everyone - I’ve written the first version of an essay on best practices in closing discussions, which can be found at WP:Advice on closing discussions. Feedback/edits/comments would be appreciated. (Please see WT:CLOSE or the essay’s talk page for discussion.) Sunrise (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

Are IP-users allowed to "vote" on RFC:s relating to the above topic? I believe it is unlikely that they are, considering the 50/300 and 1RR rules. And the general concerns about sock puppets. ImTheIP (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If the talk page (n.b. not the article) is not protected (WP:30/500 or any other level) then they are able to edit that talk page, so naturally they may vote. If they just vote, then WP:1RR cannot apply, since they are not reverting anything. Protections aside, the only pages where we have a general ban on IP voting are WP:RFA and WP:RFB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Question about Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism

Would appreciate third-party feedback on this particular question from users not previously involved with this article:

Regarding Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject:

Was it alright for me to subsection out sections in the Survey section to have separate sections for:

Previously involved editors
Previously uninvolved third-party respondents to the RfC

As I did, with edit, DIFF ?

Is that alright ?

Isn't the whole purpose of the Request for comment process on Wikipedia = to draw in previously uninvolved third-party respondents to the RfC ?

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is alright.

It's true that the purpose of an RfC that follows a nonconclusive discussion is to get comments from a wider class of people, but it's also true that an RfC should stand on its own and that participants in the previous discussion are equal participants in the new one.

In the survey section in particular, I can't imagine why we would want to establish two classes of voters.

The split makes it look like RfC is about jurors arbitrating a dispute between editors, which is more of a Third Opinion thing. RfC is "try again with more people".

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Giraffedata:Thank you for your input. So why does the first sentence of this RFC page say, "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input" ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It says that at the top because RfC attracts attention to the page from people who do not have the page on their watchlist, via the actions of Legobot (talk · contribs) which builds the RfC lists and sends notices to user talk pages. An RfC is an open invitation for anybody (other than those subject to blocks and topic bans) to weigh in, including those with no previous knowledge.

The objection is to your segregating votes into two classes, which could be seen as "caballistic". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. Sagecandor (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, you aren't the first person to think of this approach. It has been used, albeit rarely. If the previous discussion on the talk page has been voluminous, unproductive, and argumentative, and if the page has been dominated by a small, stable group of editors for a long time, then IMO there can be some value in segregating comments. IMO the main benefits are:

A separate section helps 'outside' voices realize that their view is actually needed (i.e., there may be a thousand angry words in the RFC section, but there actually hasn't been any/much "outside input" posted yet).
A separate section discourages the 'inside' voices from directly (and endlessly) arguing with newcomers.

But IMO this approach should be considered only in extraordinary cases. (Also, I'd suggest putting the "Previously involved" section second, so that newcomers don't have to scroll past it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Next steps after RfC?

Hi, I have a question on how to proceed with an article following the RfC process: Once a discussion has closed and consensus is reached, what should be the next steps to follow through on that consensus? For example, if editors overwhelmingly are in favor of making a change, how should that be done?

Specifically, I requested comment from editors in April 2017 on the International Justice Mission article about how best to treat the article's Criticism section. The consensus from the RfC was to incorporate criticism throughout. Since I have a conflict of interest as I work with IJM, it isn't appropriate for me to directly edit the page, so I posted this edit request, asking editors to look at moving the details to other sections of the article as agreed upon during RfC. While there was further discussion and seeming agreement, there was still no action, so I shared a suggested draft for editors to consider. Two months later, an editor reviewing edit requests suggested I post to two WikiProjects again for editors to consider, which I have done.

It seemed that the RfC process generated good feedback, but the discussion ended there. Is there another place I should go to follow up on an RfC? Advice from editors here is greatly appreciated. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you're taking a reasonable approach. The main problem is that most editors would usually rather WP:VOLUNTEER to do their own favorite things, which does not appear to include improving that article.

Have you tried proposing a very small, simple change using {{Request edit}} – just one change at a time, to take a baby step towards the eventual goal? Posting a single, small, simple change means that it would be relatively for most editors to review, and it's my guess that if you posted a {{Request edit}} to, say, move an existing sentence from one paragraph to another, then it would get processed in due course by whichever editors like volunteering in that process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

A bot able to alert many WikiProjects to an RfC about a policy or guideline matter?

Hi, everyone. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A bot able to alert many WikiProjects to an RfC about a policy or guideline matter?. A permalink for it is here.

I also think further discussion about mass notifying in the case of guideline and policy RfCs should take place here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing RFC:s

I need some assistance with regards to this RFC that I created: Talk:Right_of_return#RfC:_Domestic_immigration_laws. I created it on August 20 to gather feedback on an issue I raised. Unfortunately, the RFC has so far failed to get the attention of the community and has only attracted a few "drive-by" votes from otherwise non-involved editors. No discussion at all has been generated. So how do I protest the closure of the RFC? If it is a niche topic, then it seems silly to only let the RFC be open for a month! ImTheIP (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by !votes they might be, but one of the things about the WP:RFC process is that is intended to call in otherwise non-involved editors. If you don't want them popping by, don't use {{rfc}}. Have you discussed the matter with TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I closed this after Cunard requested it be closed at ANRFC. It'd been open for a month, and while the !votes at the end were concise, they were also pretty clear: they felt that the content was relevant to include in the article, which is a valid reason to argue for its inclusion in an article. I thought it was unlikely to get more participation by staying open any longer, so I closed it since another editor had requested a formal close. I'm fine if any other uninvolved editor here wants to review my work. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't know all Wikipedia policies but my intention behind creating an RFC was to start a discussion. To hopefully bring in people who are knowledgeable. Primarily because it was just me and Icewhiz discussing before (Talk:Right_of_return#Domestic_immigration_laws_are_not_about_Right_of_Return) and it wasn't possible to compromise. If instead, RFC:s are only meant to stay open for a short period of time and then let the majority "win," then I created it in error. I don't have any Wikipedia "allies" which I can rally around my cause. ImTheIP (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RfCs are typically open for thirty days, since this is the time after which Legobot (talk · contribs) will remove the {{rfc}} template and delist it from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law (and similar pages). RfCs may be closed early, or continued after the {{rfc}} has gone.

When the RfC question is 'Should this article have a section called "Countries with laws conferring a right of return"?' you should expect a number of yes/no answers with little discussion. It's not clear - either from your post above or from the RfC - what sort of discussion you were hoping for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw, I have requested that the RFC stays open. Although a user on that page disagrees and wants it to stay closed. I thought that the RFC process was primarily about seeking input (Request for Comments), similar to how the IETF Request for Comments process work. Not to establish article content by majority votes. Clearly that was my own fault for not understanding how the wiki's rfc process works. ImTheIP (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a Request for Comments, but you cannot force people to comment. If they choose to give one-word responses, that is their right. Nothing in WP:RFC forbids this, unless they are in breach of WP:TPG when so doing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want a response that is more "comments" than "votes", then it's useful to ask more open-ended questions. "Should we have this section?" usually gets !votes. "How should we handle this subject in this article?" will usually get you comments (although likely from fewer editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mistakenly thought RFC:s had to be formulated as yes/no questions. In the future I'll avoid the process because it doesn't seem to be likely to attract the opinion of topic experts. ImTheIP (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You do seem to be confusing two uses of RfCs. You're completely right that the process is fundamentally for requesting comments, but one major use of RfCs is to have comments that establish a consensus to resolve a dispute between a small number of editors. In fact, people often think this is the only kind of RfC and take RfC for some kind of arbitration system. So you probably saw the widespread advice that an RfC must state a simple question, preferably a yes/no one — advice meant only for those RfCs that are meant to resolve a dispute.

In this case, though, it really does look like there's a dispute to resolve, and I think it's unlikely that just getting additional information from topic experts, even highly respected ones, would resolve anything. The original disputants aren't going to change their positions. The only hope for resolution is for something like what happened here: enough people reached the same conclusion to call that conclusion consensus of the Wikipedia community in spite of other people still disagreeing. And that could happen only because there was a simple yes/no question. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to change my opinion if convincing arguments can show that I am wrong. That's the whole point, isn't it? We discuss things and let the best arguments win. In this case, I don't think convincing arguments were displayed. In fact, I don't think the majority of my arguments were even debated. ImTheIP (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for your confusion over the yes/no thing; I helped write that section some years ago, and I did want to emphasize that approach (because it's usually better – except when it's worse, of course). But I never meant it to be exclusive, and it sounds like the result was less clear than ideal. Second, if you want "expert" comments, then WP:Peer review might be a better target.

And finally, your last comment had a strange line break, so please look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Editing box inserting bogus hard linebreaks .28MacOS X.2C Chrome.2C about a month now.2C only on this site.29 and add your comments if that problem report looks familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Started an RfC, but unsure about necessity and framing

Due to edit-warring, I started a RfC at Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea#RfC:_Inclusion_of_statement but I am not sure if it is framed well and if it is even necessary in this case. It would be helpful if someone could have a look if all the formalities are complied with. Best regards, --Christian140 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The form is okay (and relatively unimportant: RFCs are really just an advertising mechanism for discussions).

If you think it's unnecessary, then you can withdraw it (just remove the {{rfc}} template code and save the page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christian140 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Unsure whether to start RfC

We have a content dispute between one editor and a group of editors about the history of PFC Cherno More Varna (attempt for discussion at the article's talk page). The problem we are facing is that this editor refuses to discuss yet he insists on his version and continues to revert. I filed a report at ANI but it was archived without resolution or comment by an administrator. I am not sure how to proceed further; basically all procedures for DR require preliminary discussion so starting an RfC now would contradict the guidelines. What steps should be undertaken to resolve the dispute? Thanks in advance. Yavorescu (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think if you say, "what do you think?" and are met with deafening silence, you've completed the preliminary discussion. A discussion is over when there's only one party left talking.

I'm pessimistic that an RfC will change anything. If you can't get an administrator interested in someone belligerently edit warring without discussing, I don't know why you'd get one to care about editing against consensus. The latter is much more work for the administrator.

I wish I had some good advice for resolving this dispute, but how to deal with unruly editors is as much a mystery to me as to anyone.

Incidentally, what you have written on the talk page would make a most excellent RfC (and initial comment). Good job. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, though I am no expert. You have tried the preliminary steps. You have done a good job on the talk page. I don't that RfC tagging is a necessary procedure as it is unlikely to be more useful. The issue is very focused and detailed. If you feel Rebelheartous (talk · contribs) continues to edit contrary to talk page consensus, go to WP:DR. A mediator may tell you to try sometime else; if that happens, follow their advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, but I'm still confused... He is definitely not editing contrary to talk page consensus as there is no consensus at all (since there was no discussion). Are you suggesting WP:RFM? Such request is likely to be rejected because the prerequisites are not met (4–6 and 9 of WP:MC/P#PRECOND, at first glance). Perhaps I can ask on WT:RFM first. (I should have mentioned that I tried WP:DRN first but the request was closed as premature which was a correct decision, I think -- see relevant discussion at DRN talk page). Yavorescu (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Mediation (WP:RFM) is for when all parties want it. Since one party won't even participate on the talk page, I doubt that party would sign up for mediation. I see the DRN was closed because the talk on the talk page was 4 months old at the time. Maybe you should try again now that you have been rebuffed more recently on the talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you'll probably get more useful answers if you leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Seconders for RfCs

Similar to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive 12#Too_many_RfCs._Require_a_seconder_for_every_RfC and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive 14#To_address_too_many_poorly-posed_RfCs, I would like to propose a second editor should be involved in signing off of the question to be posed in RfCs.

It is today driven by seeing a couple of RfCs initiated at WT:Drafts being regarded as not up to standard and subjected to speedy closing. Unilaterally raised, and unilaterally closed.

Learning from the archived threads, I want to backpaddle from:

"Too many RfCs". While arguable, it is not the driver, and it not intended to be addressed by asking for seconders. Seconders should help in articulating a good question to be posed, they should not be gatekeepers to the RfC process.
Inadvertently adding needless bureaucracy. Some might be necessary, but it should be minimised. Some new template coding might be required.
Introducing "rules of prior discussion", as I agree there can be many situations where this is problematic. It would be quite a hurdle for someone trying to intiate discussion if they have to pre-initiated a pre-discussion.

Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment is an important page on this topic. It contains multiple considerations that should be at least have been read by anyone writing an RfC question.

My latest idea is that writing an RfC question should see the RfC listed as a "draft RfC" here at WP:RFC. Draft RfCs should invite any editor, whether another involved, or a watcher of WP:RFC, or any other editor, to review the question being posed for the qualities of a good question to be put out for comment. Only when seconded does the RfC get templated subsections inviting contributions.

As with the two RfCs at WT:Drafts, I think it would be far more productive to have help writing a better question, than to have people articulating why the poorly posed RfC should be speedily closed.

Thoughts anyone? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of a request-framing phase for RfCs, and also that there should be at least two editors who think the request is useful before the RfC is listed and begins taking commenters' and closers' time. Or at least that the RfC lists and Feedback Request Service subscriptions should distinguish the RfCs that have been through such a process.

I don't know what "listed here at WP:RFC" means, though. I do think RfCs in this phase need to be advertised somehow.

The two RfCs at WT:Drafts don't seem to be good examples. I don't think either would have trouble getting seconded, and I don't think either could be worded so that the editors who closed them wouldn't still do it. These are cases of people being tired of arguing with the requester (over things other than the specific question on which he requested comments) and want him to shut up. Any RfC draft phase process that involves fresh people would not stop RfCs like this. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "seconded" is not a good word, but I haven't found a better. The point is not to prevent filing, but to check and improve the question. Objective, neutral, on point, that sort of stuff. "RfC copy-editor"? "Facilitator"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It does look like I missed your point, misled by the term "second". So are you proposing a system where at least one other person has to state concerns (or the lack of them) with the question before it can be filed, but it can be filed even if that person's concerns are not resolved? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Or... are you proposing something along the lines of an "RFC help desk"... volunteers who would help other (less experienced) editors formulate their RFCs? Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar. To help formulate the RfC question, with a view to helping participants in participating, and a view to helping closers close with an actionable affirmative, or a meaningful negative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably support a purely procedural step where one or more uninvolved editors evaluate RfCs for neutrality and so forth. I think "usefulness" would be too subjective as a criterion though, and I'd want to avoid opening another location for disputes. It shouldn't grow to the point where we have to evaluate consensus on whether or not to seek a consensus. :-) I'd also support something like an optional RfC help desk, which would allow for greater flexibility in format and could probably be set up by anyone without needing a consensus. Sunrise (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The hardest part of a help desk would be getting experienced volunteers to man it. Blueboar (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I for one would divert time from responding to RfCs to helping formulate them if such a thing existed. I feel that much of the time I spend responding to RfCs is wasted because the RfC is so poorly framed.

Here's a related idea: A new form of dispute resolution in which someone who wants a consensus developed, to resolve a dispute in which he is involved, requests in a forum for that purpose that an uninvolved party create an RfC. So the experienced volunteer doesn't just suggest wording, but actually words it and takes responsibility for its usefulness. He might even be a good closer for it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can already do that. It not frequent because a) it requires that someone not involved care enough to do that work, and b) that they understand the dispute well enough, without much caring about a particular resolution, to encapsulate it properly in the RfC for the other parties. Most of us have better stuff to do. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that quickly raising an RFC, and then quickly closing it, is actually a problem.

Does it waste some editors' time? Sure, but probably not as much as requiring a second person to help write the thing, and the main person whose time is wasted is the person who "quickly" raised the RFC. (If we're concerned about the FRS notifications, then we could add a delay to notifications, e.g., only sending notices about the need for comments if the RFC has stayed open for ≥48 hours.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Requiring or even encouraging a seconder is a WP:CANVASS problem. Often even having two supporters early on is sufficient to start a snowball. RfCs should be asked as if they've come from a the void, without any particular camp lurking around the ballot box. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, SMcCandlish,

You responses seem pessimistic, and not following the positive turn provided by Bryan.

Quickly closing an RfC is not a problem, no. The problem is so many RfCs open, and so many of them being hard work to digest before the outsider could comment, let alone close.

The step would be recommended, but voluntary. Not a seconder, but a helper. The helpers in first instance should be recruited from here, WT:RFC, and the helpers should be qualified to be closers, and may well be the closer.

An example just cropped up a few threads below, at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Unsure_whether_to_start_RfC. Can someone here help Yavorescu (talk · contribs) with deciding whether an RfC is appropriate, and then help with writing an objective answerable question suitable to invite outside comment and suitable for a closing decision? Not that RfCs necessarily have to have a decision made to be productive.

Personally, I feel it very hard to to write a neutral and objective RfC question on something I have feelings about. I have seen the same problem with some others. However, if someone wants to ask their question NOW, no fuss or delay, there is no intention here to stop them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

One person's "pessimism" is another's "realism". The fact that some inexperienced (or RfC-inexperienced) editors need help figuring out how to do RfCs has little to do with volume of RfCs, length of RfCs, difficulty in closing RfCs, appropriateness of the average RfC, or any supposed need to impose or "recommend" a seconder or co-drafter. They're largely unrelated matters. If someone wants to create a mentoring or assistance program for helping people new to RfCs, well, have at it. Those of us who've been writing them for years don't need that.

Virtually no RfC is going to be perfectly neutral unless is says something as bare as "Should the lead sentence contain the phrase 'foo bar baz' or not?" (And someone will still complain that that's biased in favor of keeping it, by having the keep option first!) We're all able to see through minor drafting bias, and it's not a big deal. The big deals are a) grossly non-neutral RfC that rants and demonizes the opposition or (much worse) misrepresent the facts (effects, rationales, background, etc.), and b) non-neutral notices a.k.a. canvassing (either "come help vote" kinds of posts, or invitations to knots of editors with a bloc-voting tendency, e.g. wikiprojects known to or predictable to collectively take a position). It never ceases to amaze me how many people are convinced that when, e.g., anything that could affect writing about fiction is at an RfC then all the fiction and pop-culture (manga, video games, etc.) projects should be spammed with invites to the discussion; that actually defeats the entire purpose of using RfC (unless the question is not about whether to do something, but how exactly to do it – i.e. when non-fiction-focused editors won't care and the point is to get all the fiction editors to agree).

PS: I don't like the idea, further above, of FRS only sending out notices after 24/48/whatever hours, for exactly the same as in my previous comment. The entire point of RfCs and of FRS is to get WP-wide input, so I oppose anything that thwarts that. (If you personally feel you are getting too many notices from FRS, then cut your FRS subscription down a bit; it's entirely configurable.) The problem is that if an RfC is opened and someone who wants it to go a particular way tells a few like-minded people (which seems to often happen through e-mail – you can see people arrive within minutes and in clusters, and they'll have a lot of overlap in their topical editing), then a WP:FALSECONSENSUS snowball can very rapidly form. This also happens with RfCs hosted inappropriately on wikiproject pages when the wikproject is trying to do something peculiar and knows people not participating in the wikiproject are likely to object (i.e., most RfCs opened on wikiproject talk pages, period).
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. FRS? This acronym does not appear on the project page. Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Looks worth trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added "FRS" to the page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, is the sheer number of RFCs open at any given point actually a problem? Right now, it looks like we have approximately one RFC open for every 1,000 active registered editors. Is that too many? (Please ping me if you want a quicker response; I really appreciate it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Spanish or Basque descent

I noticed an IP user replaced Basque with Spanish across several articles. Special:Contributions/89.167.129.54 I have no idea what Wikipedia policy is on this. Seems a little "motivated" to me. I'm not sure where to raise the issue either. Thanks!--Knulclunk (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I know about one of the names: Berryessa. The Berryessa clan in California came from Basque people, starting from a Basque couple that left Europe in the early 18th century because their chances in Spain appeared to be limited, while the New World appeared to offer a greater chance of prosperity. They spoke Spanish so they could communicate to their traveling companions and fellow pioneers, but they identified as Basque. So it's not correct to call them "Spanish". Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that the IP address geolocates to Madrid, Spain. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this ended up posted on this talk page - this page is for discussing the page WP:Requests for comment and the RfC process described there.

If you want to find out what the policy is on this kind of editing and how to raise an issue if there is one, I suggest WP:Village pump (policy). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the WP:Village pump (policy). There is a lengthy discussion in the archives Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117--Knulclunk (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost 48 hours and my RfC on Bettelheim not yet listed in Biography section

And I think I did it correctly. I carefully looked at a recent listing. I included {{rfc|bio . . . with the closing double braces of course. And I seemed to get the proper box.

If anyone would care to look at my Bettelheim Talk page listing, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#RfC_on_how_our_lead_should_cover_long_career_but_also_fake_credentials,_etc.?

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Where you say "I carefully looked at a recent listing", I take it that it was Talk:Peter Popoff#RfC over BLP Lead's use of "fraud", yes?

I can tell because you included the {{rfc|bio|rfcid=DE170A3}} template, including a |rfcid=DE170A3 parameter; and Talk:Peter Popoff has the only other RfC to use the value DE170A3 for its rfcid - it was assigned by Legobot (talk · contribs) in this edit. The rfcid values are used by Legobot as unique identifiers within a database that it maintains, one rfcid per RfC - and one RfC per rfcid. This means that you should never reuse an rfcid, and should not even assign your own value for it. Just leave the whole parameter off, and Legobot will choose a value that has not been used before, add it to its database, and update the relevant pages.

This edit will draw Legobot's attention, and the bot will soon fix it all up. Notice how the RfC box now says "Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list" instead of "This page has been added to the following list". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: OK, now see the following edits: Talk:Bruno Bettelheim; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies; Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requests for comment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you very much. Yes, the Peter Popoff RfC is exactly the one I used. I think I was so focused on the fact that I got a box, I just jumped to the conclusion that I must have done it correctly. Plus, I may not thought something so simple as rfc|bio (double braces both sides) could possibly work. When in fact, yes, of course simple things often work quite well. Thank you again for fixing this. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Signature vs date stamp

WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief currently speaks of a "date stamp" at the end of the RfC statement, as opposed to a full signature. Presumably this is for the technical reason that the date stamp is what Legobot looks for when copying the statement to the listing(s). I and others have interpreted it to mean that the RfC statement can optionally be terminated with an anonymous date stamp (~~~~~) with the rationale that the identity of the RfC starter is irrelevant to the RfC question. If TonyBallioni is correct here, that interpretation is incorrect, and I think the above section should be changed to read "signature" instead of "date stamp". On balance, accurate description of how Legobot works is less important than being clear about how to do this correctly. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Most RfC's typically are proposed by someone and are signed with them. It helps us see who is suggesting it, ask them questions, and if the need arises, ask them to withdraw it before it is snow closed. A date is only needed for LegoBot, but for communication with other users, the signature is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Do you have an opinion on changing the guidance as proposed? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think changing it to signature would be useful (or even signature and date stamp). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I had a run-in with somebody a year or so back when I added their signature to an ongoing RfC that wasn't even datestamped. Their argument was that if their signature was visible on the RfC listing pages, it might pre-prejudice certain people who had taken sides with or against them in the past. They removed the signature and left the timestamp and I didn't argue further.

To the technical requirements. Legobot looks for the first timestamp after the {{rfc}} template, and doesn't care whether there is a full signature or not. The timestamp must be properly formatted, such as would be given by four or five tildes. Misformatting that is known to definitely cause problems includes: use of date only, omitting the time; using non-breaking spaces or double spaces; omission of the time zone; using a time zone that is not UTC or which has an offset - such as writing 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC-5) instead of 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC). Sometimes, if {{subst:unsigned}} or a similar template is used, this can confuse Legobot unless the timestamp is entirely outside the <small>...</small> tags emitted by these templates. If {{unsigned}} is used with an enclosed timestamp and without substitution, this will break the RfC listing entry.

Legobot uses the timestamp for at least three purposes: (i) identifying where the RfC opening statement ends and thus how much text to copy; (ii) arranging the RfC listings in reverse chronological order; (iii) determining whether the RfC is more than thirty days old, thus whether to remove the {{rfc}} template and delist the RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember this being discussed here in the past year or so. Some people believe there is value in an unsigned RfC comment, and other parts of this page welcome people to use just a date stamp. In addition to the prejudice Redrose64 mentions, attaching a name to a statement is somewhat antithetical to it being a neutral statement. I think it's also true that a signed RfC statement presents an atmosphere of a personal battle -- someone begging for validation of an opinion that has met objection, whereas an unsigned one just looks like someone detected a diversity of opinion and thinks a consensus should be developed.

As for the section WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, it's pretty clear to me it's about practicality. It's the date stamp and not the signature that controls the listing of the RfC, so saying you have to have a signature would be confusing here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's what Legobot requires, and then there's what Wikipedia requires. If Wikipedia requires more than Legobot does, the status quo is what's confusing and the guidance needs to be clarified. I hear that you and TonyBallioni differ on that question, and it's beginning to look like we may need an RfC to answer it. Leaving it unresolved seems like the worst of the available options. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the common practice is that people sign and the aberration from the norm is just a date stamp. At least this is the norm for all the project space RfCs I've been involved with until today. Kudpung has run several major RfCs in the past, and might be able to give his views as to what our common practice is. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty easy to determine how common it is not to sign an RfC statement. We have lists readily available of hundreds of RfCs. Just look at a bunch. My experience has been that the vast majority of requesters sign the request.

But it's not all that relevant. Just because most people choose to sign doesn't mean they want to force everyone else to do so as well. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are what we do, not what is written down. The fact that this is the overwhelming norm means that it has the potential to cause unintended disruption and confusion if people don't do it. It's just a basic courtesy to other editors to let them know who is the person advancing the proposal, and it aids in communication. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I wish that all RfCs, and proposals, would be signed. And when the opening statement is long, such as composed of multiple sections, I think the author should be declared just under the section title. I have no idea why it would be a good idea to attempt to hide authorship of an opening statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I've seen people prefer, the very first thing under an RFC header should be one sentence (two at most) summary of the RFC. Then there should be an introductory statement from the RFC proposer which can go into more detail, and then the space for all the !votes. As long as this format is done, and the introductory statement is signed, then the 1-2 sentence summary can just be date-stamped since it is obvious the signer of the intro statement is the proposer. Any other format should use a signature somewhere where it is obvious whom the proposer is. --Masem (t) 01:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
There is not always a need for the "more detail" part, and the proposer does not always !vote first. It's often not even a proposal but a question, and the RfC starter has no position going in. Case in point. Sure, you could say that the starter should be identified in the 1-2 sentence summary or the "introductory statement", if any exists, but what advantage is there to complicating things like that? It's actually easier to give a full signature since that's what editors do dozens of times every day. Many editors aren't even aware of the five tildes. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe I generally sign all my RfCs. I always thought it was required. However some RfC proposals are a joint statement. I am well aware that some of those voting 'oppose' on my RfCs do so because they just don't like me. I believe there is a clearly identifiable pattern of this. This is a double edged sword for my RfCs because there are a lot of people who do place a lot of trust in my work. At the end of the day, anyone wanting to know who the proposer is just needs to look in the history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Mandruss is correct that you are not required to include your name. That's why the numbered list in the instructions says "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date)" (emphasis in the original) rather than "Sign the statement so everyone knows who posted it". TonyBallioni is correct that almost everyone does include their names – now. Back in the day, including your name was actually prohibited (not just discouraged), and then it became optional, and now it is common. Kudpung is correct that it doesn't make sense to have one person sign a joint statement, and there are some other circumstances where I'd recommend against it. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting has a pro-and-con table that is rarely used (but sometimes to quite good effect), and it wouldn't make sense for one person to sign the question when at least two are writing. But mostly, I think it's just not that important. The person who starts the RFC can make a free choice in the matter. As Kudpung also points out, it's in the page history anyway, and almost everyone who responds to an RFC already knows how to use a history page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think that all posts should be signed. Relying on a page history to allow clever people to discover the author is a form of newcomer barrier. Exceptions on talk pages, such as instructions, if not signed they can be assumed to be a community statement and subject to "improvement". Generally, we have a Wikipedia cultural way to distinguish this by use of a banner, coloured, transcluding text from a subpage that his its own edit history. If the RfC proposal and instructions were subjected to improvement during the course of addition of signed responses, all in the same page history, that would be too complicated. In cases where the driver of the proposer doesn't want to personally sign the preamble, possibly in a pretence that they are acting less biased that way, I think they should ask for a facilitors assistance (as discussed above at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Seconders_for_RfCs). Some of the worst subtle biases come from people who think they are successfully acting bias-free. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Off topic, but at the end of the day, a lot of RfC peter out or get side tracked because the proposer doesn't have sufficient debating experience and doesn't know how to compose a convincing, but neutral statement, and more often or not, doesn't start the RfC in the most appropriate venue. The VP is never an ideal venue for a full RfC. It's fine for testing the water though. A full RfC should be on a dedicated sub page related to the topic. As Joe Roe once correctly pointed out, it is : ...effective to work out the details in focused discussions with a small group before opening it for wider community comment. That's one of the reasons why we have project spaces. A good RfC has a proposal statement and supporting details carefully worked out by people who have good communication skills and are practiced creative writers, and most importantly, have done their thorough research first rather than just throwing spontaneous ideas at the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC statements are subject to "improvement", at least in small ways. There are some limits (e.g., no fair changing the question from 'Should we include this?' to 'Should we omit this?' after people have started replying, or otherwise highjacking someone else's question to ask something significantly different), but I've personally done it multiple times, as have others. While most of mine could be considered "technical" changes (e.g., splitting off a single sentence from a screen-long question for the RFC pages, or moving tables out of the initial question), it has generally been welcomed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What you are saying, WhatamIdoing, is correct, and thank you for you input. What it demonstrates is that Wikipedia is organic and its needs and consensus change with it as it grows - even if we end up with totally opposite practices to the ones we started off with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As there is wide disagreement among experienced editors and I don't see a consensus forming, is an RfC in order? If so, I would be happy to start it but I could use input on framing. It seems to me that there is some degree of overthink (unwarranted complication) here, and, like all overthink, that would reduce the likelihood of any consensus. I usually favor a less-than-ideal consensus over no consensus, per "perfect is the enemy of good". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if signing the statement one way or the other in the RfC would be non-neutral..I don't think there is any great reason for one fixed way of doing it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that we've got wide agreement on the initial question: Editors who start RFCs are not currently required to include their names. AFAICT that fully addresses the question that brought you here. Unless someone really wants to change the current advice to say something else, then I don't see any need for an RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that answers the current question, and we have that the current practice is that virtually everyone does sign. I see no reason to have an RfC on something like this, but I also think that if someone deviates from the standard practice, it is reasonable to ask them to put their name to it. Best of both worlds without needing an RfC on RfCs. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The preceding two comments seem contradictory to me. Editors who start RFCs are not currently required to include their names, but if someone deviates from the standard practice, it is reasonable to ask them to put their name to it. It's these unnecessary contradictions that result in unnecessary conflict. If I reasonably ask someone to put their name to it per TonyBallioni, they will often take offense and refuse per WhatamIdoing, thereby wasting my time and theirs. In certain other scenarios, the disagreement could set off an avoidable edit war.
This is human nature, folks, and we are not going to repeal human nature. You can ask people all day to play nice until you're blue in the face, but 17 years of experience tells us that many, many editors will ignore your pleas, and that will forever be the case. All this could be avoided by choosing one way or the other and recommending it in the guidance, and my choice would be the way that people are used to signing things.
But this is far from the first instance where my mind is a bit too linear for Wikipedia editing, so never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that the difference might lie in the definition of "ask". If your "ask" looks like actually asking, in a way that makes it clear that it's a request rather than an order, then it's okay. (Think, "Hey, did you know that most people add their names when they post an RFC? I know it's not required, but I think it's a good idea, and occasionally someone accidentally types an extra tilde, so I thought I'd mention it.") OTOH, if your "ask" looks more like telling, then it's not okay. (Think, "It is standard practice for editors to sign RFCs with their names, so you should do so", or, more extremely, edit-warring to add the name.)

There's also a third option, which is that the OP can be identified after the question. This could be a line that says something like "Support as proposer", or a casual comment from someone else (e.g., "Thanks for starting this RFC, Mandruss"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The fatal flaw in that approach: It presumes and requires that most editors are natural diplomats. While people can change in that way, it takes decades of growth to do so. If we hope to minimize conflict (I shouldn't need to explain how conflict severely harms the project), we need solutions for the world that exists, not the world as we would like it to be. In my experience, around 80% of editors will respect guidelines and their implicit community consensuses, whether they agree with them or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that most experienced editors would like to be perceived as natural diplomats, but the real-world solution is probably just to point the people who disagree (either way) to this page, which says that either is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why am I being penalized for this?

Hello fellow Wikipedia members!

Yesterday I (politely) alerted an editor that there were a handful of mistakes in the article he had edited. I mentioned what was wrong and he promptly fixed the mistakes. Then I was issued this warning which is copied and pasted below. I do not know why I received this because I never made any edits to the page- I only notified the editor of some errors I saw. Thank you all for your help. -SANTOS

Take a look[edit source] I think you have Chad Smith the Musician and Will Ferrell the Actor confused. Smith is an official member of RHCP, not Ferrell. Santos the handyman (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit source] Information icon Hello, I'm NinjaRobotPirate. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chad Smith have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chad Smith. Sjö (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Santos the handyman (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Santos the handyman:, that warning wasn't addressed to you. It was made on User talk:Thatninjasmurf, and was intended for them. This isn't really the page to discuss this, so if you're still confused, ask me on your talk page, where I will post in a moment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Closure

Could an uninvolved editor please close the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II#RfC about the photos of Queen Elizabeth II as it's been 10 days since anybody commented. Cheers. nagualdesign 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You can post that closure request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. This page is for discussing the page WP:Requests for comment. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. nagualdesign 01:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Voting

I've been seeing a lot more RFCs with separate sections for ===Support===, ===Oppose===, and ===Discussion===. I'm guessing that this is partly due to this page providing an example of a separate discussion area, without making people go off to the longer examples page (where voting-style RFCs are offered as one choice among several but explicitly discouraged except when the vote-counting is actually relevant).

I'd like to see fewer of these inappropriate uses. How do you think we could address this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I agree that this phenomenon is partly due to that, because the format you describe is exactly the format at the very end of the longer examples page. So either people are using it after reading everything we have to say, or are just copying some other RfC without coming here at all. Without a better theory on how people are making the wrong choice of format, I wouldn't know how to fix the problem. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the issue caused by using the two formats. Is it a technical issue for tallying votes accurately, or one of MOS/best practice adherence? Jasphetamine (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the two formats". The issue WhatamIdoing raises is that of using one particular format: the one with support and oppose sections. Some people believe that is usually a poor choice because it stresses taking sides and majority rule, whereas it's better if people discuss openly and thoroughly, consider compromise, remain open to changing their opinion, and such. The issue is purely about generating the best discussion.Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting does recommend avoiding this format. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a "best practice" thing. Theoretically, WP:Consensus believes that WP:Voting is evil. (I believe that there's a time and place for voting.)

Bryan's guess that it might be caused by seeing someone else use the voting format is at least as good as my guess that some editors might be starting with the second option on this page and expanding it even further. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I definitely see how an RfC set up for a binary support-oppose type discussion isn't going to encourage collaboration towards consensus.

As to the cause, it might be spillover from people accustomed to the walls of votes on pages like RfA's. That's a high-profile place and copying the format for another RfX isn't a huge leap in logic.

How strong is the argument against simply striking the support-oppose-vote format as permissable entirely from RfC guides? Jasphetamine (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

If you're dealing with a really huge discussion, on a yes/no question where (super-)majority rules, then the support-oppose-vote format is probably helpful overall. Some of the votes at WP:200 (for example) were probably more efficient because editors just registered their votes without engaging in long conversations (you can't have an effective 200-to-200-person conversation), and the closer could just count the numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

One current RfC explicitly states that it "is not a !voting for support/oppose". It's received nine response posts from seven different users (one being the OP), none of whom have used a support/oppose/etc. !vote. It can work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Sample WikiText may be unclear?

The existing wikitext at WP:RFC#Example is confusing for novice RFC proposers. The existing bullets for under the in the Survey section includes bulleted items for both support and oppose. Both bulleted items both end with ~~~~. Some RFC writers copy this template, flush out the arguments for both sides, and then make their own !vote below. (example1, example 2)

I think the sample wikitext shoushould be updated, but I'm not sure how. Billhpike (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Updated diffs to correct revisions Billhpike (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that people are being led into the impression that these "Survey" and "Threaded discussion" subsections are mandatory. The process is "Requests for comment" not "Requests for votes", and subsectioning is not required. Consider this recent comment by Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather separate issue from what Billhpike is bringing up, though. I didn't even understand the issue until I looked at the examples and saw that a couple of people understood this format way differently from what was intended. The RfC creator supplied the first two !votes, one on each side!

I can see that this is because it looks like we're giving an example of something the creator should write to start the RfC, when really it's an example of the goal after a couple of people have responded.

I can see one way to clarify this: supply the wikitext only of the part the RfC creator would supply (the survey and threaded discussion sections would be empty) then below that show the formatted result after a few comments have been made, to demonstrate the point of this format. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The best solution is to only include the wikitext of the part the RfC creator would use to create the RFC. Billhpike (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Redrose64's solution of removing the confusing example entirely would also solve that problem. We talked about that at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_15#How_many_examples_of_formatting_should_be_given_here? (and at least one other time more recently, currently at the top of this page in the #Voting section), but never did anything about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I overlooked that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I have made the change to remove the stuff the creator doesn't post. To separate the issues, I didn't remove the example altogether. We can talk about eliminating the example of this format altogether now, but I think we already did that recently and concluded that there is some value to this poll format. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Non-existent User

Can someone explain the significance of a redlink to a user sig on an entry? algocu (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not the right venue for that question; however, a red link on a user signature indicates the editor has no user page (they haven't created one, or it was deleted). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

How soon after a closed Rfc may one open a new one on the same topic

Should the Rfc project page say anything about timeliness, in particular, how soon after closing an Rfc is it reasonable to open another on essentially the same topic?

I find myself feeling somewhat annoyed that one week after closure of this page move Rfc at which I commented (and this move review), another page move Rfc has been opened for the same page. I don't doubt either the good faith or the cogency of the new arguments made in the new Rfc, but imho either they should have been made earlier, or they should just give it a rest for a while, and take it up again at a later time.

Will someone dissatisfied with the outcome of this one, create a third Rfc in a few weeks? At some point, this becomes disruptive of volunteer editor time. One could always just say to oneself, "Okay, I'm not wasting my time on this again," but that seems like it might play into the hands of those with an axe to grind about the results of a previous Rfc. I suppose this is a subset of the more general question of how soon can you reasonably request editor time to try to overturn consensus on any subject after it has been previously obtained.

Should the project page make any recommendation about Rfc timing? Even if it should, I wouldn't name any specific time period in a reco, but just say something about "discouraging opening a new Rfc soon after a previous one has closed," without defining it too exactly, in order to give some support to those who don't want to be whipsawed by a series of competing Rfc's. Mathglot (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: These are not RfCs, they are RMs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, we don't have hard rules on this. There are too many varied circumstances. Here's my cursory review of the situation. A second move request in just a week is generally inappropriate. It looks like the new proposal was started by someone uninvolved in the previous discussions... I'm not sure if they even knew there was a previous move discussion. At the moment there appears to be significant input by people on both sides of the issue, and you seem to acknowledge a reasonable case is being presented. At this point trying to close down the discussion would only create a mess. Let it play out.

If the situation were to become disruptively repetitive, anyone can apply a closure. However that person is taking responsibility for any ensuing mess if the closure is disputed. It's an extremely bad idea for someone previously involved in the debate to make that kind of closure, unless you're dealing with obvious sockpuppets or other blatantly abusive situation you're confident of overwhelming community endorsement. If you're involved in that kind of situation you can try posting to Requests For Closure:WP:AN/RFC asking for an uninvolved party to close. Be sure to give a very clear reason, like "third move request in one month". The reason has to be good enough that a closer considers the cost of leaving the discussion open outweighs the risk of personal-and-community-cost of an argument over the closure. Alsee (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, the problem with vague discouragement is that different people will interpret it differently, so the rule will multiply disputes ("See? It says not to do it 'too soon', and I waited a whole month!" "Yeah, but I think it means you have to wait a whole year!"). When people have proposed specific times for asking the same question, they usually suggest three to six months (but perhaps only one month under some circumstances). RM has always seen the occasional "Now move it back!" discussion on the heels of a discussion that ended with the "wrong" answer. I don't think that RFC has seen as much difficulty with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Somebody remind me how this works?

If I add a new and current timestamp after the {{rfc}}, will the RfC maintenance bot automatically 1) re-list the RfC in the current day's directory and, 2) trigger a new wave of random RfC notices to user talk pages of volunteers on the relevant responder's list? Snow ^{let's rap} 03:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The "RfC maintenance bot" is Legobot (talk · contribs) and it has a number of bugs and other quirks, such as the inability to respect <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags, as here, with this result. More to follow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix--I was unaware of that quirk! Snow ^{let's rap} 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained many times, Legobot looks for two opening braces followed by the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive). These five characters "{{rfc" mark the start of the RfC opening statement, and the first valid timestamp that occurs after that point marks the end of the RfC opening statement. It is the RfC opening statement (including the timestamp but excluding the {{rfc}} template) that is copied to the RfC listing pages. The timestamp has other purposes:

it marks the end of the RfC opening statement
it is used to determine the correct position on pages like WP:RFC/BIO which are in reverse chronological order
it is used to determine when thirty days have elapsed, and hence when the {{rfc}} template should be removed and the RfC delisted

Regarding the "random RfC notices to user talk pages of volunteers on the relevant responder's list", this is WP:FRS. The timestamp is not used to decide if a given user has already received a "Please comment on ..." FRS message - it is the value of the |rfcid= parameter that is used for that. Hence, if the timestamp is altered, the FRS won't re-message a given user; but if the |rfcid= is altered, a user may well be messaged a second time.

I do not know what this "current day's directory" is - please provide a link to it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, Redrose. Re: "current day's directory" I misspoke; I must have momentarily been thinking of the AfD listings, which aggregate the indexes per date, rather than by topic. I guess what I should have asked, if anything, was whether the replacement of the timestamp will move the discussion to the top of the topic-specific indexes--and it's clear from your response that it does in fact do so. As to my main inquiry, thank you for that info as well: the mechanic I was inquiring after was the means of triggering a second wave of invites if there had been no initial responses in the first thirty days (repeated invites to previous invitees seems less useful in these circumstances). It would seem (if I am reading you correctly) that the means to accomplish this is by triggering Legobot to issue a new rfcid, rather than by manually altering the timestamp. Thank you for clarifying that matter! Snow ^{let's rap} 21:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Forcing Legobot to issue a fresh rfcid is as simple as removing the existing |rfcid=xxxxxxx parameter; but some users don't wish to be re-messaged about an RfC that they have already been messaged about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd venture to guess that most users who have previously ignored an RfC would rather not be pestered about it again—especially if it is instead of getting notified of some new RfC.

Do you know how FRS distributes notifications? Does it notify everyone it can as soon as the RfC is listed and never again, or does it notify additional people later as their limits permit, or does it spread out notifications over every day the RfC is listed? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I've often wondered about those algorithms myself and tried to deduce them from observations about the distributed notices. I can tell you this much by way of providing one clue to the puzzle: I do not usually get anywhere near the limit of monthly notices in a given category that I am signed up for. I have very high limits in seven or eight categories, but only once or twice have I received enough notices to fill the qouta for a given category in a given month. That still allows for a lot of possible variations in how the bot chooses to distribute and time notices though. Perhaps Legoktm can clarify or point us towards the appropriate documentation. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and more so than that, if a volunteer did not respond to the first invite, it is unlikely they will respond to another. That is why I was curious about the mechanism for re-listing in a fashion that specifically triggers the requesting additional randomly chosen respondents. Of course, sometimes when an RfC is re-listed, Legobot re-selects someone to whom it previously sent an invitation in the first instance--that is unfortunately unavoidable at present, but rare enough to not normally present a problem.

The FRS messages are spread over the whole of the thirty-day period. Maproom (talk · contribs) has been keeping careful record at their talk page (also in archives from March 2017) - at the bottom of each "Please comment on ..." message is a short annotation like "15 days"; this is the interval between the discussion being initiated and the message being sent out. If you analyse these, it should tell you the spread. Caveat: in some cases the {{rfc}} template was added after the discussion began, so Maproom's measurements are from the start of discussion, not necessarily from the moment that Legobot listed the RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that there is no mandatory length of time, it might make more sense to spread out notifications over a shorter period (e.g., twice as many per day, half as many days). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The problem with that is getting Legobot changed. If you have been following User talk:Legobot for two or three years, you'll realise that nothing, not even clear and detrimental bugs, is being amended. The only feasible route is for another bot to take over the RfC portion of Legobot's several functions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have proposed cloning Lego, and nobody's objected (doesn't everyone want a copy or two? ;-)), but there seems to be some sort of delay in the development process. There seemed to be some sort of geophysical problem with granting him 28 hours a day, so that he'd have time to do a few more things, so I've abandoned that idea. But you're right: this might be nice, but I don't think we're going to hold our breaths over it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC about adding instructions for starting RfCs

NO ACTION

There was no consensus to implement this proposal as written. I will take the collective advice given by those opposing and reformulate a proposal that presents this as a suggestion given outside of the instructions. I thank all who responded to this RfC.--John Cline (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the instructions for starting RfCs be modified to include telling the filer to link any previous discussion pertaining to the request being started, that may have occurred?--John Cline (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Background

I have participated in RfCs where preliminary discussion had taken place but was not mentioned or linked in the request/proposal. In such cases, the omission invariably had a negative impact on the discussion. I have come to believe that we should add instructions to include the links; to remind the RfC's filer at the opportune moment when they need most not to forget! And since it's an iteration favoring openness, and inclusiveness as the best practice, I do not see a down side in doing so. I hope that others will agree.

Proposal

This RfC was published with a demonstration of the proposal itself included. Directly between the {{rfc|policy|prop}} template box and the "brief, neutral statement" time-stamping the RfC, is a rectangular box titled "Prior discussion pertaining to this RfC" that will display the links to prior discussion if provided (if no links are given no part of the rectangular box will appear).

The two links given in the demonstration are tangentially relevant to this request in that one is to a recent RfC that I think would have benefited by linking its prior discussion and the other is a talk page comment where I mentioned this to the RfC filer. The demonstration accurately reflects implementing this proposal, if adopted.

The template controlling the "prior discussion" <division> will be embedded inside of the {{rfc}} template and passed through a parameter called |prior discussion=. The parameter will go just after the categories. For example:{{rfc|hist|prior discussion= [URL_links] and/or [[wiki|links]]}}Since the parameter goes just after the categories, the parameter instructions should correspond and be right after the category instructions. Therefor, where it currently says:

...
If the RfC is relevant to two categories, include them both. For example: {{rfc|econ|bio}}
3. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. ...

It could instead say:

...
If the RfC is relevant to two categories, include them both. For example: {{rfc|econ|bio}}

3. If you are aware of prior discussion pertaining to the RfC, best practice is to ensure it is linked through the template's |prior discussion= parameter placed just after the categories. For example: {{rfc|econ|bio|prior discussion="links go here"}} If prior discussion is linked, do not truncate the RfC expecting the links to be read. See the template's documentation for more information.
4. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. ...

I look forward to reading the ensuing replies, and learning if the community supports this proposal. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Yes but the instructions should also say that the RfC statement and initial comment should not assume the reader has read the prior discussion - An RfC should stand on its own. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I think linking prior RFCs is a good idea... but I am concerned that a failure to link not be wikilawyered as “invalidating” a current RFC. It is quite possible for an editor (or editors) to simply be UNAWARE of prior discussions and neglect to link (for example, the previous RFC might have been held years ago, and may now be buried deep in the archives). So... Any instructions encouraging editors to link needs to be worded as being “best practice”... not as a “rule” that must be followed to make any current RFC valid. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes It forces people not to reinvent the wheel, and makes people think 'do we really need this discussion?' talk to !dave 16:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Maybe it'll trigger posters to realize that they need to have had prior discussions before initiating. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
No even if we make it a policy/guideline, I doubt people will remember to do it. Practicality being the basis of all of our policies and guidelines, I'm opposing this as instruction creep. Good idea that will never actually be followed in the case of most RfCs. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I agree with giraffedata that the instructions should include a note that RFCs should stand on their own. timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 07:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes also we should note something about relative strength of outcomes - an RfC with a strong consensus among a large group of editors should not be able to be superseded by a weak consensus among a smaller group of editors for example. It is a problem that RfC outcomes are very vulnerable to changing compositions of editors. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes While some users will doubtlessly not follow it, it is a net positive. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No: as long as context is provided, I don't really see the point. RFC's are for getting fresh eyes on the subject matter. If we putting lots of links to previous discussions we run the risk of having less people respond to RFCs in general. --Deathawk (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
No - Doing an RfC "correctly" is already beyond many editors, including some who have years of experience. RfCs are never set in stone, editors who are better at it make improvements usually within two or three days of inception, and they are sometimes improvements that aren't in the instructions. This can remain in that category. The more "nice-to-haves" in the instructions, the harder it becomes to see the really important stuff, notably the part about neutrality. I think a "nice-to-have" is a list of links to pages where the RfC has been advertised, but I'm not going to propose adding that to the instructions. It will catch on if the community feels it's worth the effort, or it won't because the community does not, and it won't be a really big deal when it's not done. Another "nice-to-have" would be standard headings. And so on.
Now, if there were a practical way to create an "RfC wizard" where folks could just fill in the blanks or choose from drop-down lists, with easy access to instructions for each field, that would be a whole different matter. But that's not on the table, and I suspect the reason we don't have such a thing for other processes is because it isn't practical. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Somewhat torn, but this RfC really should be published at WP:VPP. My first reactions to the proposal are similar to those of Mandruss. I agree that this is usually best practice, but I can think of many scenarios in which it would be highly impracticable. Certainly an RfC author should not be trying to re-argue issues recently settled through expansive consensus, but we already have policies which set out the threshold for when that behaviour crosses from legitimate effort to seek broader input to the point at which it becomes abuse of process and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Adding a second layer of control here would lead to an inflexible process that would compel authors to link to discussions which may be meandering, repetitive, off-point, the product of abuses by socks or banned users, or any number of other things which would not help the respondents of the RfC nor the consensus-seeking process generally. And if they do not link to just the right content from a past discussion that another editor wants "entered into the record", the RfC OP can be accused of lack of neutrality, setting the RfC on a collusion course with conflict before it has even started. I already see a lot more stonewalling and accusations at the beginning of RfCs lately than I have in the past, and I fear this would become just one more stretch of territory for a turf war.
That said, the proposed wording does make this more a strong suggestion than an outright rule, and perhaps in those terms its overall effect will be more beneficial than harmful, by encouraging those in conversations that have not turned toxic yet to include more background information, while still allowing OPs to avoid reference to past discussions if necessary. I think I'd still like to see the wording finessed a little more towards something that emphasizes the optional nature of this step though. Regardless, given the broad import of this discussion to a policy relied upon by a major portion of this project every day, I think this qualifies as necessitating listing at WP:VPP and/or WP:CD, if we want the resulting consensus to have proper legitimacy. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Advertised at VPP.[2] ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No, but I think that we could improve the instructions in this direction. So the problems with saying "Do this" are that it absolutely will be interpreted as a requirement, and the "if you are aware of" will be used to bludgeon the filer ("I am shocked, shocked that this obviously bad-faith editor did not link to the archived prior discussion that happened two years ago!") and claim that the result is illegitimate (only if it disagrees with my vote, naturally). There are also times when dredging up prior discussions is not actually helpful. Also, lengthening the instructions makes the process seem more daunting and difficult. As an alternative to complicating the instructions here, I suggest expanding Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment to contain more detailed advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
No per WP:CREEP. RfCs are a request for comments, they are not all or even majority on very important things discussed numerous times, it shouldn't be as a requirement; anything with previous rfcs will have have enough people to point it out, generally. Also per Mandruss, the important stuff shouldn't be overshadowed by minor stuff. Another thing, is it purely about discussions directly pertaining (e.g, discussion that led to the RfC wording, spurred the rfc) as mostly mentioned as the basis for this, or any relevant discussion (e.g previous rfcs on the same subject)Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
No although I support the template parameter being made available. RfC's should be able to function independently. If linking to other discussions is required/mandated, there is a risk that flaws in those previous discussions will undermine the new RfC, akin to 'cumulative poisoning'. In addition, as others have said, an RfC proposer may not be aware of previous discussions and this shouldn't give cause for others to claim invalidation of an RfC; as consensus pertains directly to the wording of a specific RfC proposal.
That being said maybe there should be a policy to deal with the creation of purposefully ambiguous (bad faith) proposals that are geared towards achieving a certain outcome. For ambiguity by good-faith, the solution is simply asking the proposer for extra clarification. Cesdeva (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Thank you Giraffedata for your support and your suggestion. I have added a brief statement per your recommendation and will elaborate the matter more fully in the template documentation if the proposal is adopted. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand your concern TonyBallioni. I am endeavoring to frame this as a reminder and not a creepy rule. It's OK if it is missed, a bit more OK if it's not, and the links can be added after the RfC is published as well. The parameter's functionality will not go away for not being used upon publishing the RfC.--John Cline (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with adding a parameter, but I think making this part of the instructions would open up more WikiLawyering about whether an RfC was valid, etc. I'd just go ahead and create the parameter and make a note about it somewhere on the page. I get what you're trying to do, but I think that it won't be done more times than not. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
By "prior discussion", do we mean one that is in the section above the RfC proper, or one that is now in the archive pages? Or could it be both? At this RfC we have "As promised in the section above" which doesn't refer to the section immediately above, but to the one above that. Some RfCs get started for matters that were resolved years ago, simply because some newbie didn't know about talk page archives. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest Redrose64, and your interesting question. I had considered this, and couldn't find any reason to preclude any relevant links, even if they were two threads up on the same page. At the same time, I couldn't find any reason to prescribe the links beyond their being relevant, and link-able by single or double bracket methods.
In trying to fashion an instruction that was proportionate to the other steps, I couldn't escape the constraints of the small area for text. Of the many things I would like to have stated but simply could not, prescribing and restricting certain, otherwise relevant, links simply had to go unsaid.
At best I could have scattered bits of instruction across the page and probably would have had to on at least a few instances. Or brought it out in the documentation page.
I will say that there is a certain beauty in TonyBallioni's suggestion that it not be given as an instruction at all, but instead as a parameter based functionality that is mentioned outside of the actual instructions. I certainly do not object to that approach at all and might have proposed it that way had I thought of it myself.--John Cline (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Deathawk for your perspective. I agree that a large amount of links could be off putting. The RfC certainly does not endeavor for that outcome. I don't think it's a given that it will become polluted with links and if it does, I suspect we will insert measures to throttle it down. If the proposal is adopted, your concern will not be disregarded. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also, I find the whole idea counter-intuitive. In many cases an RFC is started simply because fresh eyes who are not part of the drama are wanted. This is useful as sometimes we, as editors, can not see the Forrest from the trees per say. In other words an issue in the talk pages might be brought up, that really would not be significant to your run of the mill reader. By informing the new eyes of these prior discussions, you are preventing a fresh view of the situation from happening. --Deathawk (talk) 05:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe having a parameter in {{rfc}} would work well with the bot Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've done a fair amount of testing and while there were problems in several interim configurations, everything I encountered or could foresee was favorably resolved. I am curious to hear of the things concerning you, so they can be more fully considered.--John Cline (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Well if you've done the testing with the bot that's good :) Didn't figure actually that the bot would handle that actually Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@John Cline: Where was this "fair amount of testing" that you did? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
My editing history from March 12 to March 26 shows changes spread across User:John Cline/Outhouse, Template:Discussion interlink/sandbox, and Template:Discussion interlink/testcases although much of the results are discernible without requiring the page to be saved, and also much was tested via Special:ExpandTemplates where publishing the results is not even an option. For the most part, when a problem was overcome or the result was in accord, I would save that result, in some fashion, for later reference and use. I do believe I did a fair amount of testing, and I believe there are things I failed to consider as well, in spite of good intentions. When and if these were to come about problematically, and I could not mitigate the problem, I would then approach users much more technically proficient than me, which literally includes you Redrose64, and I am confident we could resolve those as well. Thanks for asking, and for the help you've already given.[3]--John Cline (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you WhatamIdoing, I agree with you and mentioned so above. You advocate your perspective very well. Galobtter, The original drafts of this RfC were focused on "discussion directly informing the RfC" with an example given where specific wording in the RfC was the result of compromise achieved in the prior discussion. It seemed to border on tl:dr when it was finished and much was lost in my efforts to reduce the RfC to a more concise presentation. The RfC's main question is nevertheless being answered quite well; to that end, I am pleased.--John Cline (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Philosophy template?

What's the deal with the template at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy? It's absolutely colossal (seriously, it takes up two yards of screen space) and is being transcluded into RFC/A, which doesn't really seem like a great combination. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The bot includes it, but I don't know why. I don't think that it should be there. It looks like the old User:RFC bot started adding it in June 2009, shortly after this edit, but I can't find any on-wiki discussions that link to that template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Two categories for RFC

DISCUSSION STARTED

A full {{Cfr}} discussion was opened at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 23#Category:RFC.--John Cline (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:John Cline, I see that you recently created Category:RFC, and that you have tagged it as "The main RFC category". I was under the impression that Category:Wikipedia requests for comment was "The main RFC category". What is your goal in creating the new cat?

Also, I believe that cat naming rules encouraged explicitly labeling back-room cats with "Wikipedia" (so that editors can easily tell which pages belong in this RFC cat and which belong in this other RFC cat) and discouraged the use of intials that most new people won't recognize. So if it's useful/non-duplicative, we should probably come up with a different name for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your question and comments, and admit that categorization is a sharp curve in my overall route of wiki learning. I apologize if this situation is the result of my own misunderstandings. In saying that, I am open to the likes of this critique and the learning that invariably comes of its insight, and its replies.

After creating the shortcut: WP:RFCST (targeting the instructions for starting an RfC) I searched for, and could not find an existing category that seemed appropriate for its categorization. I first searched Category:RFC (red at the time) hoping, at least, to find the tree leading to it. Being a red link, I next looked at the target page, for its categorization, and noticed Category:Wikipedia requests for comment. Objectively, it wasn't the category I was seeking; wanting an administrative container, exclusive to the RfC process, that did not commingle itself within content categories, nor its members among non-RFC-specific pages.

I then looked at WP:DYK, to scrutinize its model, and pattern a category by its example. While I appreciate the need not to alienate new users by titling pages with jargon or other types of specialized terminology, I also believe we should endeavor to supply results for search plausibilities reasonably anticipated among veteran users as well. I would have, therefore, converted the red linked category into a soft redirect to the proper title, however, upon seeing the DYK Project's manner, and use of Category:DYK, I created Category:RFC instead (as you see it now used).

I am keen to see this answered; best practice applied, and remain.--John Cline (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So the goal is to have a cat that is RFC-specific, but does not contain pages where RFCs are currently happening. That seems reasonable to me. I think it just needs a new name. How do you feel about a title such as "Wikimedia requests for comment coordination pages"? (That's just my first idea, and perhaps someone else will think of a better one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia requests for comment process"? That would cover everything related to RfCs except actual RfCs (though the category of actual RfCs ought to be a subcategory, meaning it covers those too). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not averse to a new name, nor to Category:Wikipedia requests for comment being the main category. In saying that, I'd like to ask: what is the functional difference between Category:Wikipedia requests for comment project administration and Category:Wikipedia requests for comment/project administration?--John Cline (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that subpages are very commonly used in the category namespace, but I think the pages work the same as any other subpage. If we want to find out, we could send it to WP:CFD; it's probably the best place for finding someone who knows how categories work. (I think we might need to do that anyway, as I'm not sure there mere mortals like us can move categories.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this raises an entirely new question aside. If ever an editor, without an admin flag, was whole hardheartedly thought of as an administrator, I believe you are the quintessential "textbook example". I have posted related comments on your talk page since discussion in this thread is off topic. I am nevertheless very interested in seeing that discussion unfold.

I think WP:CFD can be useful in this situation but I'd like to ask for the indulgence of a bit more wp:before time, to ensure the nomination is published in the best possible form. To help with our considerations, I am confident in BrownHairedGirl's category knowledge, If she will share it here, with us. In fact, she is so full of insight, that consensus suggests she isn't a girl at all, but a guy.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist inserting that joke, for levity. I absolutely do not ascribe to such notions, and no such consensus exists. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Mere mortals" with the ability to move pages (e.g. articles) can certainly move category pages as well; but unless they are willing to take on the ancillary cleanup, anybody (admins included) who wishes to rename a category should file a request at WP:CFDS and let Cydebot (talk · contribs) make all the moves and other necessary edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: the only applicable speedy criterion would be WP:C2E (if @John Cline chose a new name and made the nomination). But there are several options, so a speedy might be opposed ... so I think this would be be better to go directly to a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @John Cline: I'm sure that when the goddesses convict you of sexist humour and sentence you to a few centuries pushing boulders uphill, you'll enjoy their joke

Seriously, tho: tks for the compliment. Here's my thoughts.

WP:Subpages is clear that subpages (i.e. with a slash) are used only in limited circumstances. They are rarely (if ever) used for categories. I can't think of any such uses at all. That's because they are not needed: a sub-category is linked to its parent in other ways, and doesn't need the slash.

I agree with those who dislike the current name: it doesn't clarify the category's purpose. Something like Category:Wikipedia requests for comment process or Category:Wikipedia requests for comment administration would be much better.

Best way to proceed is simply to make a CfD nomination, listing a few options for the new name, and link to this discussion. Its not unusual for a CfD nomination to be some variant of "rename to something better than this", and let consensus emerge in discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is now continuing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 23#Category:RFC. Please post further comments there. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to

Hi. I restored the RFC template at Talk:Vitamin_B3#RfC_Do_the_refs_support_this_content? per instructions at WP:RFC. Can someone here tell me how to get it relisted under the Math & science RFC topic? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: You don't have to do anything else. Legobot will take care of it within 24 hours, often significantly less. Watch the listing page and note that the listing will be re-inserted in chronological position according to its timestamp (in this case, that will probably be at the bottom of the listing page). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, many thanks, Mandruss. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: Correction, I think you also have to remove the rfcid parameter, which I've done.[4] ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Legobot just decided to undo your edit and mine. How do I restore this RFC to its former status of open? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Legobot looks for the first timestamp after the {{rfc}} template. If that is more than thirty days ago, the template is removed. If you want to extend an RfC, you need a fresh timestamp, like this (WP:RFCEND does say "To restart an RfC after Legobot has automatically removed the rfc template, reinsert the {{rfc}} tag and insert a current timestamp after the RfC statement, but before its original timestamp.", emphasis mine). Reusing the old |rfcid= is valid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64. Pretty hazy but I guess it was your new timestamp on your edit "on behalf of" that I missed before. Looks great now. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttp://i-league.org/interviews-and-features/kolkata-derby-origins-and-history/

[2] ttp://www.goal.com/en-india/news/1064/i-league/2017/04/09/3737569/updated-11-facts-you-must-know-about-the-kolkata-derby

[3] ttp://www.espn.in/football/india/story/3056297/best-matches-of-the-kolkata-derby-between-mohun-bagan-and-east-bengal

[1]

[2]

[3]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 15

How many examples of formatting should be given here?

Wikipedia:Discussion review

I'm just trying to do a simple thing...

Appeal

Reopening RfCs

Why do some editors get "Please comment on" notices on their talk pages?

Fixing obvious errors and adding additional options to RfCs

Default RfC duration and the reason for it

Question about changing categories

Need some help

Clarifying Ending Rfcs section

Most difficult RfCs to close

Bot removing (rather than just delisting) RfC -- is this normal?

Neutral questions

RfC at International Justice Mission/Legobot

RFC an AFD

Notice of Request for comment

Incorrect Information Regarding Kolkata Football Clubs

New templates for !voters!

Example of a bad question

Bot not running properly?

Comment on Smartmatic

Question about venue for Wikipedian in Residence issue

Advice on closing discussions

Israel/Palestine

Question about Request for Comment - Introduction to Whataboutism

Next steps after RfC?

A bot able to alert many WikiProjects to an RfC about a policy or guideline matter?

Closing RFC:s

Started an RfC, but unsure about necessity and framing

Unsure whether to start RfC

Seconders for RfCs

Spanish or Basque descent

Almost 48 hours and my RfC on Bettelheim not yet listed in Biography section

Signature vs date stamp

Why am I being penalized for this?

Closure

Voting

Sample WikiText may be unclear?

Non-existent User

How soon after a closed Rfc may one open a new one on the same topic

Somebody remind me how this works?

RfC about adding instructions for starting RfCs

Background

Proposal

Survey

Discussion

Philosophy template?

Two categories for RFC

How to