Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment. |
![]() | Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page. |
![]() | Dispute Resolution (inactive) | |||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Pl. suggest format for RfC
[edit]I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.
After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.
Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, Please refer to one of your Apr 2024 DRN close, where in you said ".. they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. ..".
- I helping as discussion facilitator in above case, but I have not set up RfC for Multiple paragraphs, so please see if you can help out in setting up the RfC. Bookku (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Would wait and look forward to. Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024#Primary preparation of RfC question has multiple proposed additions. I think it would make more sense to have an RFC cover changes only to one section at a time. For example, the "Proposed additions of text 1" covers changes in the section ==Islam==, and the others are about other sections, so just do that one question by itself, and leave the others for another day.
- As for getting people to have a conversation, it often helps if they are directly told that the editors are looking for (non-voting) comments, suggestions about how to change the text, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
- For some or other reason the RfC got delayed since April, though RfC requesting user LPB has very appreciable patience, I had to give way to their request at some point. Bookku (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
- User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
arbitrary break for navigation
[edit]- User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing this. Though page views to Talk:Jinn increased after initiating RfC increased that did not translate into expected user participation in the discussion, that intrigues me too.
- Time constraints and restraints being DRN moderator and Admin on part of Robert McClenon are very much understandable to me, but for sake of improving participation shall need to understand from other uninvolved users What part of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 confuses and puzzles users uninvolved so far? so we can improve possibly this RfC and next RfCs in this series.
- What is clear and what is confusing in of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1? and how we can improve grammar, meaning, understanding of RfC intent?
- User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Which of following may have area of difficulty to understand?
|
---|
|
- Let me ping few users to uninvolved so far in present RfC to understand their inputs about above questions regarding area of improvement in on going RfC format.
- @Eucalyptusmint and Zero0000: @Toadspike and EEng: @TFD and Austronesier: @Maproom and Blueboar:
- Fyi:@Louis P. Boog:
Why set of above users pinged?
|
---|
- Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't intend to disrupt you. It's not what others are finding difficult but what an uninvolved user like might be finding difficult? Unless we survey we won't understand our area of improvement that's why request. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is s question about how to ask a question about a topic I know nothing about. I'm out of here. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not a disruption… I took a quick look at the proposed RFC, and my initial reaction as an outsider was “Too long, didn’t read”. You are asking too many questions at one time.
- I was able to understand that the basic question being asked is: “should the article text include statements A, B, and C in sections X, Y and Z”. But about half way through I got lost in the wall of text, and stopped reading. I also quickly got confused by all the green drop down boxes.
- My advice is: keep it simple. File an RFC asking about one section, resolve that… then file a second RFC about the next section, etc.
- Finally, this is a somewhat niche topic area… I don’t expect you will get a lot of non-involved editors commenting. Ascertaining consensus will be difficult. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you and Blueboar have a point.
- Average per day page views in 2023 for Talk:Jinn were 5. After initiating RfC page views were 80, 60, 80 in three days. Idk what can be ideal participation ratio difference is considerable to ignore.
- @Louis P. Boog scheduled wiki break is coming let LPB restart the RfC afresh taking above points into account when they come back. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- WAID: It was worse before this fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- My good faith effort was to provide all relevant info at outset through collapse templates, easy navigation and presentation; with your valuable inputs I realize, that actually may have added into complexity. As per inputs henceforth I shall strive to keep it as much simpler.
- You would have noticed, I always seek community feed back, fully respect and strive to improve with collaborative support of all Wikipedians. Bookku (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreeing with the points that have been brought up by Blueboar and WhatamIdoing, there's a lot of info. It makes the whole thing hard to follow and takes away from question(s) you are seeking input on. Based on your list of questions above/feedback you're requesting, am providing some thoughts below on "text 1", hoping it can help some.
- 1) Heading of RfC: instead of saying "proposed additions of text 1", could say, "proposed additions to Islam section"
- 2) Question of Rfc: currently the proposed question is written as "Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?" Took a look at this section and it has 4 subsections, so it's unclear where this proposed text is meant to go.
- 3/4) unable to comment as am not familiar with this topic
- 5) Ref-List and author brief provided: providing reflist is helpful, the author brief isn't needed
- 6) Brief of general content disagreement: also don't think it needs to be included in the rfc itself, probably can be placed elsewhere
- - Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Eucalyptusmint
- 2) Would it be okay to ask
- "Should the following sentence be added at the beginning of section "Islam" in the article?"
- Many thanks for valuable inputs. Fyi: @Louis P. Boog
- Bookku (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help! and yep, I think that works. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest having no sub-sections and no instructions. Just ask the question, sign it, and stop. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Most popular if you need an example of what this looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help! and yep, I think that works. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Louis P. Boog Users seem to be finding associating with RfC difficult for unexpressed reason. If there is not adequate participation at this point then, is there a point in continuing RfC at this point? would it be better to suspend the RfC for some weeks and restart when some uninvolved users could tell at least what they are finding difficult with RfC? Bookku (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No objection. Perhaps I should have gotten involved more when the RfC first opened. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Anchors
[edit]When Legobot removes the RFC template, it also removes the anchor/id number used in various messages. I wonder whether we should expand the directions here with a note about optionally adding an {{anchor}} for the id number, so that inbound links will keep working?
On the one hand, I reluctant to have even longer instructions. On the other hand, avoiding broken links seems like a good idea in general. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- For now, it would need to be a manual action, as Legoktm is reluctant to amend Legobot (and wants to unload it to somebody else if a volunteer steps forward). But
{{rfc}}
tags may also be removed manually, not just by Legobot action - such as when WP:RFCEND or WP:RFCNOT apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)- I agree. We could, for example, change the wording from "To end an RfC manually, remove the
{{rfc}}
tag from the talk page" to say "To end an RfC manually, replace the{{rfc|id=123454678}}
tag on the talk page with{{anchor|12345678}}
, where the number is the id number automatically assigned by the bot to the RFC. The other parameters should be removed." - BTW, do you know enough Lua to give us an
|id=
parameter/alias in Module:Anchor? It might be easier to tell people to keep the|id=
parameter intact. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)- I know no Lua. This is why I get so upset that templates that I've been happily maintaining for 10+ years get converted to Lua. Anyway, if the ongoing RfC has e.g.
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=1234567}}
the corresponding anchor would be{{anchor|rfc_1234567}}
- you need to add in therfc_
part. The|rfcid=
is a hexadecimal number and always has seven characters, I don't know why it's not six or eight. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)- Perhaps someone thought we'd never need more than 10 million. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seven hex digits allows for (16^7)=268,435,456 values which, if we assume ten new RfCs each day, would last us for 73,493 years. Six would be 16,777,216 (4593 years) and four would be 65,536 which allows for ten new RfCs per day for 18 years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- "However much you think you'll need, add three zeroes"? 73 years would have been overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seven hex digits allows for (16^7)=268,435,456 values which, if we assume ten new RfCs each day, would last us for 73,493 years. Six would be 16,777,216 (4593 years) and four would be 65,536 which allows for ten new RfCs per day for 18 years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone thought we'd never need more than 10 million. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know no Lua. This is why I get so upset that templates that I've been happily maintaining for 10+ years get converted to Lua. Anyway, if the ongoing RfC has e.g.
- I agree. We could, for example, change the wording from "To end an RfC manually, remove the
RFCNEUTRAL question
[edit]Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#c-BilledMammal-20240730013200-WhatamIdoing-20240730012800. A concern has been raised about a suggested RFC question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Format of an RfC
[edit]Does the format of an RfC always have to have a subsection called "Survey" in which people vote and another subsection called "Discussion" in which people discuss or challenge each other's votes/comments? I ask because an RfC that I began on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi looked like this, where you could view what someone's choice was and how they had responded to queries or challenges to that choice. Several editors, including at least two admins, had already responded and replied to queries or challenges. At this point an editor made this edit with edit summary "standard RfC format", whereupon they proceeded to disconnect the vote from the immediate follow up challenges. The format makes a reply/challenge less effective as it is made in a different section by pinging the commenting editor. If they are not able to respond, or choose not to, then it is hard for a third party reader to figure out who is was that was being questioned and who the one not replying. Most editors will not scroll up and down, back and forth, between these sections to evaluate a response. My own feeling is that such a "survey" and "discussion" format makes it very easy to cast facile or unsupported votes.
So, cutting long story short: is this format compulsory? Is it Wikipedia or RfC policy? Look forward to your answers, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It should usually not have such a section. The most popular format has no subdivisions. An RFC is a normal talk-page discussion, and it should therefore not create an artificial separation between votes and interactive discussions. Subdivisions can be useful (e.g., if a very large number of responses is expected), so they're not banned, but they're neither required nor common, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I was reinventing the wheel, and a very wobbly one at that. Thank you very much for that link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should add something to the main page about this? I just checked the open RFCs and found that a majority don't have any sub-sections at all, and only about 20% have separate subsections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===. Of those, I'd say that maybe half were warranted (e.g., Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence with 188 comments so far, or my WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species), which has 452 comments so far). That separation was more common for non-articles.
- Talk:Asmongold#RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? (started by Some1) and Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article? (started by Ad Orientem) were formatted with separate ===Yes=== and ===No=== voting sections, which is standard for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but should be very rare otherwise.
- Perhaps another bullet point in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC, to say something like:
- Most RfCs should not have separate sub-sections for "Survey" and "Discussion" comments. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting for more information.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am emphatically ambivalent on the question of how to format an RfC. That said, I tend to favor legal minimalism. IMHO an RfC should be formatted in whatever way seems most practicable at the time, and then allowed to develop organically. If a section needs to be added, then add it. If there are too many, then go ahead and boldy merge them if such can be done without causing problems. If there is a disagreement, then discuss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like the bullet points you're talking about are the numbered steps to create an RfC, so advice on the discussion format wouldn't fit as another item there. The misnamed section "Example of an RfC" is where advice on formatting of the discussion is. That section implies it's normal not to have survey/discussion format, but if it's important to emphasize that, this is where it would go. It might make sense to refer to this section in step 2 of the instructions. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Incomprehensible RFC
[edit]If I think that an RFC is incomprehensible, due to a combination of grammar errors and sloppy construction, and that an uninvolved administrator should end it, because it isn't useful, where should I make that request? It isn't an urgent conduct issue, and so it shouldn't go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, if you post a link here, someone will usually notice and take care of it.
- This is not an admin's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria, it looks like the editor started the RFC and then spent the next couple of hours trying to clarify the question. That happens sometimes, and while it's unfortunate, it's not really against the rules. If your first attempt isn't making sense, it's really in everyone's best interest if you try to fix it.
- I would describe the sequence as that, first, the editor started the RFC, then other editors criticized it harshly, and then the editor spent the next couple of hours trying to fix it. The difference is that they restated it as a question after being told that it was a poorly formed RFC. The difference is that at least two editors responded and criticized before the originator improved it. I have mixed opinions on whether that matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- For an analogous situation, think about Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content. We try to give editors some time to fix their mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:WhatamIdoing - Yes, that is the RFC in point, but this is both a question about it and a more general question, because other RFCs are also malformed. Now that the RFC asks a question, it still asks the question in a form that is grammatically garbled, and I still don't think that I can answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the question is whether it's okay to imply that the US is providing weapons to that terrorist group, on the grounds that they have acquired some weapons. It rather reminds me of a line in "The Whisky Priest": "Either you sell arms or you don't. If you sell them, they will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them". The US sells arms; therefore, some of them will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them. Or who scavenge them off battlefields. Or who steal them out of warehouses. Or any of many other ways that these problems can happen. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a Wikipedia article should imply that the US government intentionally, directly, or knowingly provided the weapons to this particular group – unless reliable sources say so, in which case the Wikipedia article should, too. It will ultimately all hinge on the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:WhatamIdoing - Yes, that is the RFC in point, but this is both a question about it and a more general question, because other RFCs are also malformed. Now that the RFC asks a question, it still asks the question in a form that is grammatically garbled, and I still don't think that I can answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria, it looks like the editor started the RFC and then spent the next couple of hours trying to clarify the question. That happens sometimes, and while it's unfortunate, it's not really against the rules. If your first attempt isn't making sense, it's really in everyone's best interest if you try to fix it.