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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution articles
Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.
RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?
As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?
No. However, an RFC is usually an effective way of determining what editors agree to do, and that agreement – which we call consensus – is binding, as long as the agreement holds.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?
No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. If the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Is an RfC the correct way to go about the following problem?[edit]
In my opinion the article on Reiki is uncomfortably biased and shows bad writing. There are pages and pages of archived and active talk discussions spanning nearly 20 years, and it always seems to revolve around the issue of tone. I think the article is seriously in violation of NPOV and may go against the Manual of Style, but there are some people who seem to take that criticism very personally, and thus reject any neutral debate.
I would like to escalate the issue of the article′s quality to outside of the few people who have consistently been pushing for or against change to neutral third parties within Wikipedia who have more knowledge about editing pages and the Manual of Style than I do. Is an RfC procedure with the question “Does this article comply with NPOV and Manual of Style requirements?” the correct action to take? Maybe some other, less vague or less leading question might be appropriate, but I cannot think of one.
Thank you in advance! --Konanen (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see value in merging the questions of NPOV and style. It just looks like something intended as an attack on people who support the current text. If it comes to an RfC, I would start with the NPOV question alone. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I fail to see how the inclusion of a question about the MOS turns an RfC into a personal attack, especially considering that the two overlap quite a bit when looking at the “Words to Watch” section? –Konanen (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't turn an RfC into a personal attack; it makes it look like one. If someone calls into question a bunch of beliefs that have nothing in common except that they are all held by a particular party, a reader can easily conclude that the questioner is really looking for a victory over that party.
I didn't know WP:WTW was part of MOS; it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with editorial style. If that's the part of MOS that you think the article might violate, you should specify that, because if you just say "Manual of Style requirements", readers are going to think you're talking about use of boldface, formatting of dates, and punctuation of quotations. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
URGENT: I have an issue starting with my RfC, and some errors too.[edit]
So i am trying to make an RfC about me wanting to add some additional sources + other questions and stuff. on one of my talk pages, but when I first published the RfC, the quote of my talk page isnt showing.
Location of my rfc: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All (specifically at the science, maths and technology section) My RfC is "Talk:Light skin", the quote of my talk page isnt showing, kindly help me with this. have a good day.
I am new to wikipedia (4 days old) so i am not familiar with codings
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.
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:RFCENDorWP:RFCNOT apply. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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."
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 the rfc_ 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)[reply]
