Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 16

If an RfC question is updated on the talk page, will the

Why didn't the bot include the content of my question from

talk

) 04:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 07:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been a recent RfC close that has been challenged on several grounds. The RfC is now being cited as providing new rules in RM and similar discussions. Suggestions? Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Answered here. Andrewa (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As noted there, the usual procedure is described at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures. Although, now that I think about it, it's a moderately unusual thing to do. (The undocumented and un-encouraged response is to revert the closure. However, this is usually only successful if the closing statement very obviously does not represent the discussion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As you say, it is unusual. The suggestion before was WP:AN but the edit notice at AN there says If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you.. So I'm going to AN/I. Andrewa (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Bloodofox|talk, Pudeo, Nblund, David Gerard, Feminist, AmbivalentUnequivocality, Starship.paint, MarioGom, Ozzie10aaaa, Guy, Simonm223, Aquillion, and FULBERT:

Each of you has recently voted in an RFC at

There is no wrong answer. I'm really just looking for information about what you did and how long it took. If everyone is doing the same thing, or if everyone's doing something different, then we might be able to find ways to improve the documentation and perhaps find some ways to make RFCs more efficient for editors. On the other hand, if everyone says that figuring out the answer just required glancing at something for a few seconds, then there may not be any realistic process improvements available to us. So please give us as accurate an answer as you can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a regular on the
  WP:RSN
  as something of a perennial dissenting voice on the relative reliability of newsmedia, particularly with regard to A) that any newsmedia is considered reliable for the construction of an encyclopedia and B) that which newsmedia is treated as reliable maps so directly to which newsmedia reports a bias on events preferred by western liberal democracies. As such, I keep an eye open for threads on RS/N about newsmedia in general. Now I do have a set of presuppositions from which I work that are derived from my many years of on-again, off-again Wikipedia editing:

1. All newsmedia carries a strong bias.
2. The bias of newsmedia includes an inherent recentism which is at odds with
   WP:10YT
3. The bias of newsmedia also universally includes a selection bias that shapes what Wikipedia treats as notable and contributes through that selection bias to our
   WP:SYSTEMICBIAS
   problem.
4. Some newsmedia is particularly egregious when it presents overt falsehood as if it were fact or opinion.

In addition to that, I have a very long experience with the Epoch Times as a source, having been involved in the arbitration case regarding the Falun Gong very early in my Wikipedia career. This outlet has remained something of a thorn in my paw since then. I have felt somewhat vindicated by the additional scrutiny the Epoch Times has faced since 2016, since I've been saying precisely what outlets like the New York Times have been saying about this particular source literally for years. So how long did it take me to reach the decision to call for the deprecation of this source? There's two answers both of which are true: the first is that it took me precisely as long as it took to type my comment. I fully admit I entered that discussion with my mind made up. Because that's the other answer. I've been developing this opinion both on the use of newsmedia in general and on the use of this specific outlet in particular since June 2009, when I first encountered the way it was being abused to shift the POV of articles on a controversial new religious movement that I'd encountered through the martial arts forums that represented my main online hangout before I got involved with Wikipedia. So how long did it take me? Ten seconds; and nine years.

So I guess the tl;dr answer to your question is that I have a set of beliefs about the use of reliable sources on the project and keep an eye on the noticeboard in hopes of persuading others that these beliefs will improve the project. When I choose to participate in these sorts of questions it's generally in order to do that. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I follow
  WP:DEPRECATE currently might not emphasize enough that the source is still usable in some contexts.
  Thank you for opening this survey. I'm very interested in other answers as well! Best, --MarioGom (talk
  ) 18:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I love that the first two responses have such different time scales. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I read the NBCNews, New York Times, and Buzzfeed coverage of the source, as well as their Facebook advertising (illuminating!) and the main space links on Wikipedia I also spent some of my off time the last day and half just browsing the page. I usually have a short list of search terms that I plug in when trying to get a sense of source quality. E.g: "Chronic Lyme", "Vaccines", "QAnon", "Climate change". All of those are issues where there are some clear facts that any decent outlet should cover, and in all of those cases the source failed to do so. Like MarioGom I was torn between "deprecate" vs. "generally unreliable", I voted for deprecation here primarily because of the effort to mislead readers about their affiliates (covered in the NBC report), and their defensive non-response to the criticism. There's a difference, in my view, between sources that are
  fabricate stories. The Epoch Times falls in to the latter category. Nblund ^talk
  18:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Washington Times that looks superficially reasonable but when you scratch the surface you find sufficient bias that it can't be trusted. [6] has been pretty dependable as a first stop, though. Guy (help!

) 20:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I wonder whether the link to Ad fontes Media ought to be promoted a bit more to editors who work in news-focused content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I regularly edit on fringe topics on Wikipedia (usually folklore studies-related stuff), and so I'm a regular on Wikipedia's fringe and reliable source notice boards. It's difficult to quantify how much time it took me to realize what the Epoch Times is all about. Over the last few years, I've encountered the paper distributed in U.S. cities beside generally reliable operations like the New York Times, coverage of the increasingly infamous German branch in German media (although I have yet to encounter a physical copy in Germany), and, finally, U.S. media coverage of the many tentacles of the operation (such as various articles mentioned above). I recall also encountering the now-notorious ads placed by the Epoch Times on social media while working on a research project for an entirely different subject. On a surface level, the Epoch Times seemed quite suspicious to me when I first encountered it. Once I dug a bit deeper, I was surprised to find exactly how far the rabbit hole went—and it only seems to go further: As journalists note, we still don't know who is funding all of these very expensive and rapidly multiplying Epoch Times operations. All that considered, it took me no time to come my conclusion (which I'd summarize as 'this is an obvious propaganda machine, under no circumstances should it be considered reliable, and it needs to be blacklisted from Wikipedia ASAP'). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• It varies a lot depending on the type of the RFC and whether I'm commenting early or late (if I'm commenting early, obviously there's more pressure to think through my position in detail and lay out out carefully, and I clearly don't have the option to read other people's arguments; if I'm commenting late, I can read other people's arguments and weigh them, which tends to be faster.) For disputes over article content it can also be useful to glance over the discussions leading up to the RFC, although it often gets a bit circular and obtuse by the time it becomes clear an RFC is necessary.
  WP:RSN RFCs are generally slightly easier because by the time a source is being discussed there people have generally dug up a lot of secondary coverage, but it can also be useful to do a search myself to see how the source is covered or described elsewhere - and to look at its Wikipedia page; while we don't cite ourselves directly for articles, the Wikipedia page for a disputed source often has summaries of its controversies with sources you can check to see how serious they are, and a summary of its reception that can give you a good starting point in determining if the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 22:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'll give you an answer only for this particular RfC. I already remembered physically seeing a copy of the Epoch Times with a frontpage promotion of the Spygate conspiracy theory against Donald Trump. As far as I am concerned, that is fringe. I then read the entire discussion so far, and I agreed with the points other editors were making. They pointed out that the source was peddling antivaxx and QAnon - even worse! I trust my fellow editors. Then I voted. This may be different for other RfCs. starship.paint (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• How long I spend deciding how I feel about a source varies greatly depending on whether or not I have any prior knowledge of the source, and whether there has been widespread coverage in other sources I consider reliable. If I do have prior knowledge, I read a few articles by that source (usually the first few articles by a given source that show up in my News feed), and then do some searching to see what publications that I consider reliable have said about them, and then read the arguments presented by people who have already answered to see if that changes my mind. If I have no previous knowledge of a source, I will either (a) refrain from becoming involved in the discussion, or (b) do pretty much the same thing I would have done if I had known about it previously, but spend quite a bit longer on each step. I generally won't get involved unless, after researching it, the answer seems obvious and well supported. If I spend a several hours researching a source and can't come to a firm conclusion, which usually happens when there is very little coverage in reliable source, I am not particularly comfortable casting a vote. The exception is if the source is obviously pushing fringe theories (anti-vax, climate change denial, holocaust denial, flat earth, etc.), in which case I don't feel the need to do any real deep digging to see what reliable sources say other than verifying that the source is actually pushing those theories, which is enough for me. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

In my ongoing quest to keep up with how the role of RFCs evolves in this community, I bring you this recent comment:

Comment It would be much easier for people to take part in this conversation if the RFC was reworded to fit within the standard style of RFCs so people can use 'support', 'oppose' etc. Please can it be changed? John Cummings (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

(Hi, John! I hope you don't mind me using you as an example.)

The RFC in question has struggled a bit, with editors not really understanding what's wanted. The question asked originally might have been overly broad, and what's perfectly obvious about the Manual of Style to a long-time FAC coordinator is not necessarily obvious to others. But what struck me about this is that it seems to express a preference for binary choices (e.g., as opposed to an evolving conversation that would develop compromise language through interactive discussions) and for voting.

This isn't the first time I've seen this, but usually it seems to be a sentiment expressed by newer editors. I wonder whether the community has moved past the idea that

I'm not sure there's a conflict between preferring binary questions and opposing voting. What people object to about voting (polling) is vote counting - majority rule. I'm a big fan of binary questions (usually multiple ones) as a way to reach a consensus easily, but binary questions in RfCs rarely elicit simply poll responses. Even when the requester sets up a "survey" section and requests that arguments go in a separate section, the survey section is full of elaborate arguments following "support" or "oppose", and many of the survey responses don't even start with "support" or "oppose". The binary question still helps frame the discussion. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

But a binary phrasing seems to discourage people from creating alternatives. "Should we use this picture?" might get elaborate reasons for the yes/no responses, but the real question can really be reduced to two options. I'm not sure that it makes as much sense to ask yes/no questions to elicit suggestions on how to phrase complex or sensitive information. You can say "yes, the current version is fine" or "no, it's not", but if you want editors to work collaboratively to develop new sentences, and hopefully to compromise somewhere in the middle between two factions, that goes beyond the yes/no paradigm. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

As I have noted at

SmokeyJoe, are you thinking about a rule that says "don't start an RFC about AFD outcomes"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that thought did not occur at all. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

More some kind of steps in preannouncing an intention of filing one. And as I have argued previously, some process in drafting the right question. Or at least not a bad question. I think there should be some requirement to show that lesser steps of seeking consensus have been tried. I previously suggested requiring a seconder, that is, someone to countersign in agreement to the call for an RfC. Some here disagree because a lone editor could be blocked. However, as we see with this case, the RfC can be blocked by reverting the RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of questions here, and I'll tackle just one.

In my experience an RfC runs until there is a consensus to abort it, always discussed within the RfC itself (that could be a separate subsection within it). I've seen perhaps 5 or 6 disputed RfCs in six years, and one has been successfully aborted. If an RfC is that clearly inappropriate, a consensus to abort it should not be overly difficult. Can you say how this approach is inadequate?

It should be obvious that a single editor can't block an RfC, so I'll assume we're talking about a "BRD" approach to RfCs; i.e. not a block but rather a challenge-by-reversion. I would oppose that – if RfCs were subject to processes normally applied to article content, we could end up having to run an RfC to decide whether to run an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be impractical to have in WP:RfC guidance at the level of specificity that would prevent the RfC in the example. If we tried, it would be so voluminous that people wouldn't be able to find the guidance applicable to any particular case. Rather, the advice on when it is appropriate to open an RfC should go in the pages about other processes. In the example here, an editor opened an RfC to solicit comments on whether an AfD discussion was properly closed, and did so without first discussing the close with the closer, and the claim is that was an inappropriate use of an RfC. I'd rather see that stated in whatever page covers the AfD process than in WP:RfC. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

As for how to contest the opening of an RfC, I would support a section describing the process User:Mandruss does - if you don't think the RfC should have been opened, discuss that within the RfC, with the possible result that the RfC gets ended and or the discussion closed early. But the discussion does not get deleted. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFCNOT already says not to use RFCs for splits, merges, and deletions, which seems to cover the instant case pretty comprehensively. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I had missed that. It provides a justification for reverting the RfC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The hole here is that RFCNOT doesn't mention DRV. This is because I overlooked it when I drafted up that section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, RfCs should not be used where DRV is appropriate. I don't think anyone doubts that.

RfCs should not be used for WP:Merging or WP:Splitting, I think that's good, although a closely related question might be put to an RfC.

The process here to my reading came from use of

WP:AfD to reverse a bad BOLD WP:Splitting

. AfD is not supposed to be used for merging, but "merge" is an allowed standard outcome from AfD.

At this point, I am not saying anything here is broken. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, do you think that this small change might help a potential RFC-starter in the future?

I agree with you about the merge/split thing. To use the instant example, if AFD says to merge, then you're stuck with the merge (or you can contest it at

WP:DRV), but you could have a whole series of RFCs on exactly how to merge the pages. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 03:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it helps. I think readability helps. I have tried putting it in table format for easier browsing. I think it could be better organized, better sorted. I think that piped links make understanding harder for first time readers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

My original list was sorted alphabetically, because any other order would be subjective. When I actually added the list, I kept that order but deliberately put "Asking for help or assistance" at the top because it's most relevant to newbies, who are the ones that I most often see starting RfCs for trivial matters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

RFCNOT. I'm not sure if you like the table format or want to revert it? I think it helps in reducing a lot of wordiness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• One thing to remember... while many RFCs are filed in order to resolve disputes, not ALL are. Sometimes an editor just wants some community input. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Right. It is the open ended RfCs that have bothered me the most. If there is a dispute between a few people, it is usually easier to define the question. The recent examples of problem vague RfCs have been on
    WP:Portals. --SmokeyJoe (talk
    ) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Meh... sure, vague RFCs can be less than helpful if you already understand what the actual problem is, and need to resolve that problem. However, a vague RFC can be a great way to DISCOVER what the problem is when you are not sure. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
      • True, but what if two or three are running in parallel? Eg one in userspace, one on the guideline talk page, and one (or more spawned) at the Village Pump VPP? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
        • It depends... if they all relate to the same issue (ie they are duplicative), I would say we can combine them by closing (not deleting) all but one... with a closing comment pointing to the one that remains open. (and I would go with the venue that is likely to bring in the most participants). However, it may be that there are multiple issues at the same article, and each issue could benefit from community input independently from the others. In which case, having multiple RfCs is not a problem. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
          • I failed to mention that I am largely concerned about policy/guideline RfCs, such as the wild searches for purposes of
            WP:Portals, or MOS issues like at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. --SmokeyJoe (talk
            ) 03:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• I routinely zap inappropriate use of the {{rfc}} template, as here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe, I believe that you are entitled to say "I told you so!" now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Well, I tried to contribute to RfCs generally, and found it very very hard. The questions typically seemed written assuming a familiarity with the issue and history as held by the few already participating. Rarely is the question biased, more the question is hard to contextualize. It's easy to point out problems, harder to suggest solutions, and very hard to suggest solutions that will be refined to better solutions instead of being shot down for their weaknesses.

My RfC wishlist, for features that would make it easier for me:

(a) Some system of pre-clearance. Minimally, a readability check by a second person. Ideally, an agreement by existing debaters that the question is well-framed.

(b) Every RfC on its own subpage. This enables watchlisting of the RfC. It can be transcluded onto the talk page so that talk page visitors see it.

(c) All RfCs formally closed, even if closed with "Closed, inadequate participation. No consensus."

Noting User:S Marshall/RfC close log, I wish that User:S Marshall could comment.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Any system of pre-clearance likely would have fixed that one before people had a chance to start voting, but adding complexity and bureaucratic layers might make people less likely to use RFCs.

We might be able to have a sort of fake section-watchlisting system (someday, not soon, and not for "free" – there are tradeoffs involved).

Do you want "closing" (discouraging further comments/boxing up) or summarizing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Likelihood of using RfCs?? My suspicion, gut feel, is that RfC-starting is too easy for some who do it, and RfC participation is too low and is biased. I think a little pre-clearance procedure would be good for both.

Section-watchlisting system? Isn't that a pipe dream? What's wrong with an RfC on a subpage. Big RMs on subpages have worked well. RfCs on village pumps are I think the worst for anyone who uses a watchlist.

Closing? What makes me sad is finding an RfC that petered out and was archived without a close. Or was it acted upon without a close? I like archive boxes with a closing summary up top. The ideal closing summary is one that means I don't have to read the RfC. A close "no consensus" is OK but not ideal. A close: "No consensus, editors are split in support of A & B. C was rejected. D was ignored" is better. A good RfC question makes easier good participation and good closing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. How would a requirement that they be closed even be enforced? What do you do if it doesn't happen? When an RFC doesn't get closed, who do you complain to? I suppose bots could be required to never-archive an unclosed RFC, but would that really be helpful? Having an open RFC that nobody wants to touch linger on a high-traffic page like a carcass isn't great, either. --Aquillion (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Aquillion. Forcing unclosed RfCs to stay live would be most likely bad. I think I might like to see stale RfCs bot-closed. Maybe it would just be aesthetics. Maybe it would be a useful to the few watching that stale RfC to see it closed, for the sake of closure (psychology). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Some sort of "closed by bot as stale; if this discussion has not yet been archived, any user who thinks this is premature may re-open it, and any user who could legitimately close this RFC may replace it with their own close" could work, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that something should be done about malformed, non-standard, problem RFCs; it's extremely difficult to address them after they've started attracting comments, especially when the discussion is contentious. Far too often I click into an RFC from RFC/All and find that it's just a complete mess - basically a threaded discussion with an RFC tag slapped on top of it. But there seem like a lot of dangers - one problem with pre-clearence is that there could be an intractable dispute over the wording of the RFC, whether it's biased, and so on - nobody wants the madness of an RFC over your RFC. I'm also a bit leery about the added red tape given the importance of RFCs to conflict-resolution - yes, this is a problem, but RFCs do work, on the whole, so anything that could make it harder or more complicated to start one should be considered carefully. New users sometimes screw up when making an RFC, but we also do want to encourage them to start one if they're in an intractable dispute rather than just going around in circles fruitlessly. --Aquillion (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Meh... not all RFCs should be a choice between pre-set options (“choose: A, B, or C”)... I often find that my opinion is not represented in any of the pre-set options, and so I have to add an option “D” halfway through the discussion. I find it better to ask the more open ended: “In situation X, what should be done?”

I think that such open ended RFCs are often very helpful, as they can inspire “outside the box” thinking, and introduce solutions that no one has thought of. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Open ended RfCs are great. It is still good to have them summarized when closed/archived. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, SmokeyJoe. Yes, I've closed a hundred-odd RfCs and here's what I've observed. (1) I don't feel that Wikipedia has a problem with malformed RfCs. Where a question isn't neutrally worded to start with, as occasionally happens, I find that the participants are able to edit it until it's right during the course of the debate. There are occasional exceptions and outliers but everything has exceptions and outliers. (2) I agree that the questions are sometimes unclear at first glance. This is usually because we phrase RfCs as questions without context. There is no substitute for going back through the history reading the diffs until you've established a sequence and you know what each party is trying to achieve ---- this helps when you're closing the RfC, because when you come to read the debate, you know which participants are involved in the dispute and on what side, and which are independent. Independents summoned by bot are helpfully neutral but they often answer without reading the history thoroughly, and I usually assume they're missing the context. Independents' answers are sometimes a bit tangential to what's actually at issue. (3) RfCs are the way we're supposed to resolve content disputes. I feel that this means RfCs should be "cheap", by which I mean cheap in volunteer time. One of the things I most like about them is that they're quick and easy to set up and that's a feature we shouldn't lose. (4) A couple of years ago, Amy Zhang interviewed me via Skype. I think she was considering setting up a software tool to help with RfC closes and she asked me about it. I'm afraid I discouraged her. Her tool was going to help sum up the arguments presented and the number of editors supporting each option. I said that I felt that RfC closers (and participants) need the context and the sequence just as much as they need the arguments and the numbers.

  Is this helpful?—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you, S Marshall.

To pithily summarize: There isn't really a problem needing fixing. I mostly agree.

I hear, to come in cold/neutral to an RfC is naturally very difficult. Asking for the RfC question to be improved for the independent participant would likely be a bad idea. A good RfC participant will read the background.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a good RfC participant will read the background, but I never do. I just don't have the time, and that task is really tedious because of the way discussions wander. I'm an example of S Marshall's cheapness point. If a requester cannot present a simple and independent question, that RfC just won't benefit from opinions of editors like me. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thinking about S Marshall's point #2, we could encourage people to add diffs: "If this RFC is about an edit that's been disputed, consider including a diff in the RFC question".

I think that having (some) RFCs summarized conflicts with the goal of having (future) editors understand the consensus. The tool that Zhang et al. were working on would have exacerbated this. Every thread gets reduced down to a single decision – more like

task management software than like a discussion of logic and sources. Some summaries are helpful (The Decision™ is Officially X now, and them as don't like it can lump it at their earliest convenience). In some cases, though, there are complex and subtle arguments getting reduced down to a yes/no/no-consensus decision. Sometimes the details matter at least as much, or even more than, the overall end result.[7] WhatamIdoing (talk

) 04:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For some years now, I've been observing the behaviour of Legobot regarding RfCs, and had determined that it looks for the first timestamp after the {{rfc}} template. Thus, I expected this edit by Iryna Harpy (talk · contribs) to fail (with Legobot subsequently removing the {{rfc}}), since the new timestamp is after the old one in the text, not before. However, apparently it worked - Legobot has ignored the first timestamp and taken the second one as the applicable one, which is clearly Iryna Harpy's intention, but not the way that Legobot has operated in the past. I suspect that it might be the position of the closing </s> tag, being inside the parenthesis of the "(UTC)". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me in on this one, Redrose64. For all intents and purposes, this is exactly the response I anticipated as the bots accomplished what what it was intended accomplish: supersede the previous RfC. Because I was not thinking clearly and in a hurry, not knowing whether I'd remember to submit the RfC in 5 minutes time (for reasons of personal ill-health), I just went for a clean relisting even though I believe the outcome to be already be clear. Has Rosguill contacted you over reverting back to the perfectly valid original RfC? If so, I think it should be reverted rather than have my addle-headedness stand in the way of a legitimate RfC. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Should The Gentlemen be referred as a crime comedy, which it clearly is or an action crime? Stuv3 (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

This is posted on the wrong page. This talk page is to talk about the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

A good place for this question is the talk page for The Gentlemen. I see the question is already there, and did not garner any responses, so it may be appropriate to make the question a Request For Comments as described in Wikipedia:Requests for comment, to get a wider audience. But I would recommend against that. Instead, since you apparently have an opinion on the question already, you could take the lack of interest to mean no one cares as much as you and just edit the article to conform to your opinion. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There are 10 RFCs open at RSN now. This has not been a particularly unusual number for a while now, now that some editors seem to be trying to get every third source officially banned from Wikipedia.

I've noticed an unfortunate pattern in them, that a bland, context-free RFC is started, and then a few comments later, someone declares that the editor who started the RFC is doing this as a sneaky attempt to overturn a previous decision. Or the original editor will propose a source that's not being used at all, or that has never been discussed (or has been discussed repeatedly, always with the same outcome), so we're wasting people's time, and the responding editors don't know what's going on.

I have therefore suggested a change to the format at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Formatting the general source RFCs, and I've love it if you could post your views or other suggestions over there, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Could a few folks take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices? This is the result of an ANI discussion, and we are trying to minimize legitimate complaints about neutrality. (We've been promised that one such complaint will be forthcoming because it links to a list of article content that was scraped by an editor on the "wrong" side of the dispute, but I don't consider that valid. It's not like the article content would be magically different if someone else had searched for the same keywords.)

What I'd like from you is (1) a note about whether you find any neutrality-related problems, and also (2) to put this on your watchlists. If we're lucky, we'll get a lot of responses, and we might need some clerking. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

One more thing: The question links to several policies and guidelines. Do you think I should post notes on their talk pages? I'd been thinking about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: IMO this RFC is going really well. Nearly all respondents (and there have been a lot!) have been 100% constructive from their first word. The subject matter is technically challenging, but everyone's bringing what they can to the discussion, whether that's real-world knowledge of the subject matter, or information about how similar questions are handled in other areas of Wikipedia, or deep understanding of the content policies. It's a joy to watch this unfold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

...but part of the suggested wording isn't neutral. One of the questions implies that it is necessary and desirable for editors to "ensure" that portals get used more.

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals Closed and elsewhere, and ArbCom members have agreed that the suggested wording was not intended to be the actual questions, and that it's fine to improve upon it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Following on from WT:Requests for comment/Archive 16#Specifying that RfCs should not be listed on AfDs, I have more suggestions for the list at

Your first case is improper use of the template, not of the process – the editor didn't intend for an RfC to occur there. Therefore I think that would be out of place in the table. Trying to fix failures to read the instructions by adding more instructions is self-defeating, and likely futile. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the "Deletion processes" line. It refers to the "Deletion Process" page, but that page covers a bunch of things similar to but not actually deletion - like repurposing redirects.

I believe having a single table entry here pointing to a page that breaks out into a bunch of other things that only weakly form a category makes the table too complicated, and it would be simpler just to take all seven of the venues listed at

WP:Deletion venues and add them to the "What not to use the RfC process for" table. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk

) 03:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The RfD one was a consequence of, most recently, this edit. The other one was this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you submit an RfC on any issue that you would like additional input on or should it be reserved for cases where there is a dispute? RfC's are positioned as part of the dispute resolution process but the introductory text on the RfC page is more open:

Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages

I welcome editor input on this. Qono (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

It's more a case of what RfCs are not for, see

WP:RFCBEFORE still leaves other possible avenues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 00:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFCNOT, there needn't be a dispute to list it as an RfC? Qono (talk

) 00:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RfCs are an important part of the dispute resolution process, but that's not all they are. I don't see any contradiction. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You are not required to have a dispute. In my experience, dispute-less RFCs are uncommon, more pleasant, and attract fewer responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"Request for comment". The name explains the purpose. If there is something that needs wider input from the community, and does not have any other specific way of getting it, RfC is the way to get it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've just discovered that

@

WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 07:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, the help desk is (appropriately) at

WP:HD. ―Mandruss ☎

10:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This RfC has received responses from two sockpuppets of a user. One of the responses was removed by the administrator who imposed the blocks for sockpuppetry, but since I am the proposer in this specific RfC, I'm not sure what to do about the other one. I'd like to know whether it is appropriate to strike or even remove responses from sock puppets from RfCs in general. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 18:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

See the next-to-last bullet at

WP:TPO. ―Mandruss ☎

18:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to relist an RfC? I was advised by an admin here to relist an RfC that I started in order to get more input, but there are no instructions at

Yes there are, at

WP:RFC#Duration, paragraph beginning "To extend a current RfC". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 00:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I was looking too hard for the actual words "relist".  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If after 30 days an RfC has only generated four comments but has reached a consensus, is it appropriate to extend said RfC to obtain more comments? KyleJoan^talk 14:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan, you should keep an RFC open until you have consensus, whether that takes one week or ten. You should not keep soliciting input from outside editors (=what an RFC actually does) if you already have a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is another problem that needs to be addressed. Some editors still believe that RFC results are binding. They're not. They're normal talk page discussions with an advertising mechanism (and which we therefore hope will even more perfectly reflect the views of the community), but consensus can change, and I've helped overturn at least two bad RFC results myself (one about nude images in Pregnancy and another about Chinese journals at MEDRS), with everyone much more satisfied after the original discussions were rejected. We probably need to put this directly into the page. RFC results are basically binding only if and when ArbCom says they are, and then only temporarily (in their rare "have an RFC and whatever the result, you have to live with it for at least a year" motions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC results are binding to the same extent that consensus is binding. They can only be overturned by a closure review, by another RfC, or in certain situations based on common sense like being obviously out of date. Certainly consensus can change, but if we go around emphasizing that consensus is "not binding", it misses the essential point that you can't edit contrary to it until you actually establish a new consensus. Sunrise (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Binding" isn't the word we use to describe normal consensus. IMO it'd be much more accurate to say that RFC outcomes are

presumed to reflect the consensus at the time of the RFC. I agree that we must scrupulously avoid swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think "binding" is a pretty good word for it, and the rest of your statement indicates bindingness isn't what you're concerned about. We are all definitely bound to edit according to consensus, and the result of an RfC (a good one) is a closer stating clearly what consensus is. And we try really hard to respect the closer's conclusions about consensus. Otherwise, what are we doing here? I don't want to put anything in the page that weakens any perceived authority of RfCs.

But you don't talk about ignoring an RfC result if you don't like it, because it's not binding - just a recommendation. You talk instead about consensus changing and through further discussion demonstrating that consensus is different from the closing of a prior RfC. So is your point really that RfC results are not immutable? I wouldn't mind saying that in the page. But I'd want to say that any new conflicting consensus has to be unambiguous. If people go to the trouble of determining consensus through an RfC, that shouldn't be lightly discarded. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"Not immutable" feels true.

I don't think we can demand unambiguous outcomes. No consensus is a possible outcome, and what to do under those circumstances is pretty complicated. If the first RFC outcome produces a weak consensus to ______ and the next one has an RFC outcome of no consensus to do that same thing (but no consensus not to do it, either), then nobody really knows what to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You have a good point about no consensus being a possible outcome, but I don't see that that stands in the way of demanding an unambiguous result. If a closer of an RfC says, "there is no consensus on this issue", that's pretty unambiguous, and it overrides a previous RfC that was closed with, "consensus is to ______" and puts the situation back to nobody knows what to do. Welcome to Wikipedia. Ambiguity as to whether there is a new consensus or lack thereof would happen when the new discussion is not an RfC, or not closed, and at the end of the discussion, there are conflicting views as to whether the original consensus still holds. In that case, you need a new RfC if you want to stop following the prior one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If it were really unambiguous, then I think my wiki-friends wouldn't all be at

WP:ARBREQ right now, with a fight about whether "No consensus to include this information" means "I can include it in hundreds of articles, because there is no consensus against it" or "This should be removed, because there is no consensus for it". WhatamIdoing (talk

) 14:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Related to the discussion we had at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 16#One editor withdraws, another re-opens?, we have another editor who has seven open RFCs, plus has extended an eighth RFC that had been opened by someone else. The most recent was in response to editors not agreeing completely during the first five hours of their discussion.

The RFC process has a Tragedy of the commons aspect to it: A single editor can hurt everyone by filling the RFC with discussions that could easily be solved through normal discussions, without requesting broader support. This is the second time in a year that we've encountered this misuse of the RFC process. Should we consider an actual rule against this? I don't have a specific "rule" in mind, but at the more stringent end, it could sound as restrictive as no editor should start more than three RFCs a month, with the prospect of a TBAN for egregious or chronic offenders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is the age old problem of it being too easy to start the heavy RFC process. Whether the problem is (i) too many RfCs on overlapping questions; (ii) a poorly thought out or phrased question; (iii) RfC being overkill; etc, the common problem is that a single editor in a whim can create a month+ long train wreck that encumbers any other efforts in the meantime.

This is not to say that this problem reflects most RfCs or RfC initiators, but that the cost of a poorly considered or prepared RfC is considerable.

My suggestion is a light RfC approval process. Someone who knows about RfCs must check the proposed RfC for problems like the above, question the proposer if the question or intent is not clear, and assist in copy editing the RfC opening statement. This might take a day. Or two. That compares very favourably with several weeks of multiple RfCs that are predictably not going to achieve anything. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I too am sensitive to the overload of RfCs and would like to find a way to have them fewer in number and higher in quality. The idea of somehow screening RfCs for quality before they are published has not been supported in the past, but maybe a per-editor quota is simple enough. I'm for it. A quota just on RfCs that don't result in a closing with consensus found might also help. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand the reluctance for screening becoming a barrier for access to RfCs. It is a valid concern. However, I am sure it can be handled. It needs to not be possible for a particular editor to unilaterally block the RfC idea of another.

A per-editor quota sounds like a very sensible small step. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm liking the idea of "sensible small steps". We should (ironically enough) probably run an RFC over this, mostly by way of advertising the change.

SmokeyJoe, realistically, if you want a mandatory pre-approval process to happen someday, then we should start by designing, implementing, and staffing an optional pre-approval process. Editors are very unlikely to agree to requiring something that they haven't seen before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not wanting to get ahead of myself, but yeah, how could it work? One thought was to add a line in the RfCbot, to catch it on launch, and list it on a new page as an RfC launch in progress. This would be to give RfC expert volunteers 24-48 hours to review and talk to the RfC initiator. If no one does anything, it goes through automatically as now.

A possible response I image might be: Hey Joe, I see you have listed an RfC on X at page. Can we work on making the question more neutrally worded?

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Too big a step. A good place to start would be to put together a committee and noticeboard for reviewing RfCs and a suggestion on this page to pass your RfC by this committee before starting it. A further step could be to include a flag in the RfC lists and solicitation emails saying the RfC has been so reviewed, which potential commenters could use in deciding if it is worth their time. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You lost my interest at the word "committee". ;-p WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: "the RfCbot" is Legobot (talk · contribs), and any solution which involves changing that bot is impractical unless somebody else is willing to take over all of the bot's current tasks. Legoktm (talk · contribs) has been trying to unload them for some years now, and is not carrying out enhancements of any kind. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You mean Legobot task 33. It would be great for someone fresh to take it over. It sounds like small improvements can't be made because the bot is too heavy. Is "dilapidated" the right word for this? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• The ironic thing is that before we could implement any such change, we would probably need an RFC (or three). Just saying. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh the inertia! What would be the first question? Is this an idea worth developing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Related this this thread, in this RFC close review, some suggest that this RFC was “malformed”. I’m not sure I understand. Why it should be considered malformed, although I can offer criticism of the RfC question and presentation. However, if it was malformed, what could the RfC process do to catch it? Would somebody have read that RfC opening statement and been inspired to say “Wait! Can we improve it before it gets advertised?” —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • We also have the issue of people claiming that their is consensus and than trying to shut down any further discussion or development of consensus.
  • Additionally I have also recently seen a small group decide to format a RfC in a manner that a few voices could overpower the majority just by writing the most.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
    • WP:RFC says: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." First, it can end up being faster to discuss on talk than to wait 30 days, plus the time needed for someone to close it. Second, if the question is not carefully considered, it can leave the dispute unresolved even after the RfC has closed. Or resolved by people with no knowledge of the issue who don't realize the question is unhelpful. SarahSV ^(talk)
      04:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Agree with all those things SV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
        • RFCs are supposed to be constructed so that "a few voices can overpower the majority", assuming that those few voices happen to be the ones complying with policies and following the facts. If we wanted to have majority rule, this page would be called "Votes". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• There are two paths we could take to addressing this issue: implementing a mechanism that tries to catch bad RfCs before they're launched, or implementing a mechanism that allows us to shut down/fix recently launched bad RfCs. Within the "before" category, the options are to either (a) set up a thorough but slow pre-approval process, which (as noted above) we're not ready to do, or (b) use a clumsy proxy for RfC quality (i.e. setting a monthly limit), which would block editors who are just active in areas that sometimes require RfCs and launch many legitimate ones. Those are both bad options, which leaves us with the other path, trying to figure out how to nip bad RfCs in the bud before they become disruptive. I like this approach better, and I've had success in the past just removing the RfC template when an editor adds it to a discussion where it's clearly inappropriate and working things out with the editors in that discussion. However, the issue with letting others in a conversation police whether it's turned into an RfC too aggressively is that the whole point of the RfC process is of course to prevent a local group from being able to control an area when outside editors might have a different view, so they can't be allowed to dictate it. Where I land given all this is that we should relax norms against reverting/refactoring bad RfCs, but that there should also be some scrutiny when that happens. (This is similar to closing discussions, where anyone can try it but it won't stick unless it's done well.) Perhaps removals of an RfC tag could trigger some notification to a noticeboard where neutral editors could check to make sure it was appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A couple of us have removed {{

The most recent proposed description was added by User:SUM1. It says: "Information page on the process of requests for comment on Wikipedia".

The problems with this description are:

1. This page is not technically an
   Wikipedia:Information page
   (so the first half is potentially false/misleading).
2. It provides no additional information than the title (so the second half is pointless/redundant).

If this isn't present, then the default description will be displayed ("Wikimedia project page", which is at least as pointless, but at least it's not wrong, and we don't have to look at it in wikitext). Do we want to have this wrong-and-redundant description displayed to mobile users? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The

WP:SHORTDESC people desire a locally-generated shortdesc on every non-talk page. This is not just to ensure that one exists, but also to consciously override the Wikidata one, which is prone to undetected vandalism. See Wikipedia talk:Short description and its archives; also User talk:Redrose64#Short descriptions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 07:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very concerned about undetected vandalism for a page like this. My question is whether "we" want it, rather than whether "the SHORTDESC people" want it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The SHORTDESC people's opinion of how this page should look is as important as anyone else's, but I personally think a short description is a good idea too. Something like "Information page on the process of requests for comment on Wikipedia" is significantly more descriptive, or at least clear, than the three-word title. It has to be accurate, though. You don't think this is an information page? How would you categorize it? I see pages like this called information pages often. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It is certainly 'a page that contains information', but that doesn't mean that it's an official

Wikipedia:Information page

. I suppose that, like the various XFD pages, it's main purpose is to define a procedure, but that's a page type we haven't created (unless the procedural page is also a policy).

If you're happy to have this template on the page, then I'm satisfied. We'll have to figure out an accurate and non-worthless description. "Procedure for advertising a discussion to other editors", maybe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The process is known as Request for Comments, so that's what should be in the short description. "Procedure for advertising a discussion to other editors" is a short description of the RfC process, not of the RfC page. How about "Description of the Wikipedia Request for Comments (RfC) process"? And no, I don't think the page title ("Request for Comments") makes it immediately clear that the page is a description of a process by that name, so I think this adds value. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds redundant. The description is never shown separately from the title. The editor sees something like "Wikipedia:Requests for comment – Description of the Wikipedia Request for Comments (RfC) process". Spelling it out that way doesn't provide any more information than saying "Process page" (and if it gets too long, then it's not visible). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As an example of the kind of undetected vandalism that I mentioned, here's one which went undetected for two and a half days. It prompted this edit by Interstellarity (talk · contribs). Now, is anybody here watching d:Q4654740? I'm not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Unfortunately, some vandalism goes undetected. I understand that we cannot prevent vandalism as long as Wikipedia remains open to all, but we can take steps to make sure this kind of vandalism gets reverted quickly. Interstellarity (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm watching the Wikidata entry. It is not a popular target for vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, the short descriptions are here to serve the mobile application. While it may not be common to browse the Wikipedia namespace with the mobile app, it is possible. I have done so. Rather than removing a short description, editorial iteration toward a suitably short and concise description seems reasonable to me. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this template is to override Wikidata's description locally. Wikidata's description says "Wikimedia project page". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Come up with a better short description for this page? Sure. Exempt this page for some reason from the shortdesc process (which, 2 million articles in, clearly has consensus behind it)? I don't think so, nor would that even be desirable as Philoserf notes above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.

I can see no rationale for two separate edits, and I oppose unnecessary complication. Propose change to:

If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement, then follow with additional comments.

―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, seems fine to me. The important thing is that the initial statement is signed to cut off the part transcluded by the bot. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily signed, just in possession of a valid timestamp such as would be produced by

WP:5TILDES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 22:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone zealously checking to make sure that you used a separate edit? If not, then I propose that we don't actually have a problem here, and that this set of directions is more likely to result in editors, at least 98% of whom have less experience with RFCs than Mandruss, doing the right thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. We are not talking about a massive undertaking to get the guidance in line with practice. If there is no reason to do two edits, there is no reason for the guidance to suggest two edits. I don't need to show an actual problem beyond the fact that the guidance is currently incorrect, which is itself a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that nobody's enforcing this unnecessary rule is relevant. As it stands, some people are going to find it confusing and think there must be some complexity they don't understand that makes it matter if it's one edit or two. I like clarity. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's actually clearer. Most people are looking for a list of simple steps to take. "Write this; now write that" is "clarity". Most people are not trying to find subtle hints about what might or might not happen if they write "this" and "that" in the same revision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• I find it annoying when it is hard to find out who wrote the rationale. Advice to sign a brief header sounds good. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  As I understand from the above and reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief; task 33 in Legobot responds to new text containing the {{rfc}} template. If there is any, it then searches forward for the first timestamp. It then copies that much text to the noticeboard. If somebody starts their RFC with one long post including lots of detail, then the bot will just copy it all. A long statement will make the list harder to read seems quite clear. So, maybe just add a little re-iteration after If you have lots to say ... edit the page again ...? Post a short summary (which the bot will copy) and then go back and add any further detail (which the bot will not copy). Also split Statement should be neutral and brief into two parts — Statement should be brief and Statement should be neutral.  — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 16:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, it scans for the first valid timestamp. But that does not mean that the first timestamp needs to terminate a post. You can make a post that contains two timestamps, one after the brief statement and one at the very end - for example, Talk:Billie Eilish/Archive 2#Infobox image RfC 3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  True, but it goes against instinct. A talk post ends with a sig. Putting a sig (or just a timestamp) in the middle of a post somehow confounds feng shui. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  I guess it's hard to say how most editors view posting on a Wikipedia talk page. You yourself use two models in the same paragraph. First, a post is delineated by a sig. In the next sentence, it's delineated by pressing the "Publish changes" button. I agree it goes against instinct to write two sigs and press "Publish changes" once, because formal talk systems just have a Post button. But I also think editors of talk pages, especially ones that Legobot reads, need to get used to the idea that all that matters is the resulting text, and saying to write a sig/timestamp and then keep typing makes that more clear than saying to edit twice. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  Instructions that "go against instinct" are not models of clarity. When we need editors to go against their instincts, we need to either re-word the directions to avoid that (which is what we did here: we are counting on their "instinct" to sign each comment to get the two timestamps that this needs) or we need tell them that this process will go against their instincts and that they're going to need to write something, sign it, write something else, and sign it again (probably with an example, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The article Sly, Slick and Wicked has had a weirdly slow edit war (over the course of a couple of years?) about what band the article is meant to be about (there are two bands from the 1970s that have the same name). I think there needs to be consensus on what the article subject should be so that it doesn't continuously get changed. Is this topic appropriate for an RfC?

I would directly try to discuss with the involved editors, but the main editors involved are SPA IPs that seem mostly inactive. The article also seems like a niche topic, so I think that without an RfC, there won't be enough editor input for consensus on what the article should be about. I also suspect some COI editing, and one editor wrote in an edit summary something about a "court record" being the reason they changed the article content... so I assume extra eyes and input from experienced editors would be helpful. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, Shouldn’t there be some conversation on the talk page so that these editors, across time, can make themselves aware? Even a summary of the issue you have observed could help. Additionally an Editnotice could bring awareness to editors of different opinions that only encounter each other at a distance. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Philoserf: Yes, I don't mind starting a conversation. I'll start with that and leave some sort of message about there being 2 different bands, possible COI editing, and edit wars. I've never used an editnotice before. Would you have any suggestions in this case? - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Whisperjanes, I am certain you have seen them. They are described here wikipedia:Editnotice. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realize that's what they're called, or that you can request to have them added to a page. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:MOVE the pages so that you end up with Sly, Slick, and Wicked (Los Angeles band) and Sly, Slick, and Wicked (Cleveland band), and have both articles point at each other. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I looked into it before I thought about doing an RfC, but it's hard to find online reliable sources for bands from the 70s with the same name. I personally couldn't find enough reliable sources for the LA band (there are enough for the Cleveland band, though, which was what the article was originally written about). So I don't have enough sources to create a separate article for the LA band myself. I also mentioned creating a separate article on the talk page, but I still haven't gotten a reply. It seems the unsourced edit warring is going on again, though, so I might just revert the article to a previous version and let people discuss it on the talk page. Especially since it's getting close to a month that this (new batch of edit warring) has been going on now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well... I know this will seem silly, Whisperjanes, but I think that writing that second article, even if it proves to be non-notable and gets deleted, is an effective path out of this mess. People are going to quit writing "is a group of out Los Angeles" when the page title says "Cleveland band" in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I think that solution works well (not silly at all). Thanks for your help! - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

An interesting situation has cropped up over at

Yes. More to the point, determining WP:Consensus (the point of an RFC, right?) takes into account all the information known to the editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

But when someone closes the RfC discussion, that person will summarize that discussion. Not all opinions on the topic; just that discussion. And the closing of an RfC discussion carries a lot more weight in arbitrating what is the consensus of all editors on the topic than a bunch of unclosed, nonRfc discussions. So it behooves people who care about the topic to contribute to the RfC discussion, even if they also contribute to other discussions.

This is the same as the common case where someone starts a new RfC discussion to resolve a dispute that arose in a single, huge existing non-RfC discussion. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if an AfC is appropriate for the article

• You seem confused. What do you think AfC is? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. What I think is not relevant. I am asking what is the right thing to do. in the presert article is stated "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project". so what is your advise? --Postconfused (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

If in doubt about an RfC, or an AfD, do nothing. Both require an editor who at least thinks they are sure about what they are doing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I didnt' ask what I should do, but what is the right thing to do. I am not going to propose either an AfD or a RfC. I am asking how experienced editors would manage the discussion about that article. --Postconfused (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The more specific conflict resolution systems are preferred over RfC, so AfD would be more appropriate than RfC as a way to get consensus on whether this article should be deleted. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE and decide how likely it is that the article would actually get deleted. Remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup

, so the current state of the article is unimportant.

Also, before you do any of that, you should probably look at the dates in those comments. Some of them are from 2014. Their complaints may not be relevant any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Thanks for your reply. Personally, I am not a deletionist. The article presents several fictious references. for instance, the definition itself of neofuturism is based on a reference from a another wiki https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Neo-futurism (ref 2]; reference 3 is not a reliable source, ref. 4 is a ted tak where there are no references to neo futurism, same for references from 5 to 14. is this article based on original research [WP:OR]? I was unable to verify ref 16, in ref. 17 quotation is correct. Then, we have the definition provided by a unknown manifesto and an author deleted by wikipedia. Reference 28 does not provide any source to confirm that Cohen gave any defintion of neofuturism, reference 29 is the url of a library (!?). I wasnt able to verify with google book the quotation in ref. 30. In addition the author mentioned in references 30, 31 wrote about futurism (eg Marinetti) in the 30s, but never mentioned neo-futurism. Actually, it was known for brutalist architecture. The question is: what can be saved and properly referred in this article? --Postconfused (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Postconfused, have you read the actual WP:Editing policy? It might give you some clues. Beyond that general advice, the most important thing is to find and read a couple of good sources, and then do whatever you think is best. Don't count on other editors being interested enough to drop what they're doing and start work on this instead. WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

On the article, I think it passes

WP:NEOLOGISM, it is a recognized neologism, and it has a place. However, as a time-specific experimental fashion in architecture, I don't think it has great depth of potential for growth, or a body of interested adherents. I think no process should be employed, beyond incremental improvements. I don't think the taggery helps. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and SmokeyJoe: Thanks to both of you for the detailed explanation. Unfortunately, I feel uncomfortable to edit this article as design/architecture is not my field. I prefer writing about what I have studied/researched. But I am good at identifying fake references as I must read several student essays every term. One of these papers mentioned neofuturism but I wasn't able to find scholar pubblications to verify the existance of such a movement. Only this article neo-futurism seemed a reliable source but when I verified the references in the article I realised they were fake. Overall, interesting example of how a factoid can be discussed and eventually accepted. Postconfused (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Postconfused. You "verified the references in the article I realised they were fake"? That's pretty serious. I looked at some of the references and thought they were OK, but I wasn't in a very critical mood. Can you elaborate on "fake"? We shold take this to the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

When I put "neo-futurism" architecture into books.google.com and scholar.google.com, I find enough sources to be certain that it's a notable subject. Consider, e.g.,

doi:10.1080/10464883.1992.10734506: 'There are two distinct currents in this critique: "postmodern historicism" and "neofuturism." The former has reverted to the revival of architecture of the past to cloak today's technologically complex buildings with historical styles. The latter derives its imagery from the expressionistic unraveling of form to suggest the collapse of scientific and cultural meaning. Both trends represent cynical views toward the present: postmodernism escapes to the past, and deconstruction escapes toward the future.' WhatamIdoing (talk

) 02:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@

doi:10.1080/10464883.1992.10734506 received 13 views (including mine and yours) from 2012 (online version) and no citations from 1992 (printed version). In addition, what does "the collapse of scientific and cultural meaning" and "cynical views" mean? I did not find any scholarly book on history of design or architecture giving a definition of neo-futurism. I find very peculiar also the absence of neofuturism in textbooks considering the numbe of archi-stars 'dropped' in the neo-futurism article. Another oddity, I didn’t find any exhibitions or conferences on neo-futurism. The only event is the ICNFNFA [the link to the event is blacklisted by wikipedia and I cannot post it] organized by the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, which is defined by Wikipedia as a "a predatory publisher of open access academic journals" and "accused of arranging predatory conferences, in order to artificially boost the academic credentials of presenters and paper submitters". But, once again, I am not an expert in this field, I d not have any experience in architecture and arts and I might miss some relevant materials or sources. Postconfused (talk

) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, eg ref. 29 or 30. Last but not least, the section on "The Neo-Futuristic City Manifesto" lacks of credibility and good faith. The article of the author was deleted and this [8] and [9] seemd spamming or promotional activity. But once again, I am not an experienced editor, I do rely on your and WhatamIdoing's experience in managing those cases. Indeed, what is your view? --Postconfused (talk

) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's rules do not assume that an article published in a mid-tier niche academic journal is fake merely because the individual article has not been cited or read very much.

• Sorry but no one said that
  doi:10.1080/10464883.1992.10734506 is fake. It is the outcome of your google search. I gave you my opinion, it is a poor source and I am not going to use it to support a defintion of neo-futurism. Postconfused (talk
  ) 19:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You are not required to use any source, or to edit anything. However, it appears that Wikipedia's standards for sources do not match yours, and articles must be written to Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps you would be happier writing at Wikibooks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Source #5 is certainly reliable for statements of fact. The magazine has been
  WP:RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 16:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you please take this discussion somewhere else? It has nothing to do with the

Neo-Futurism talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk

) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

In my review process, “new RfC patrol”, I would give it a tick. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what outcome they're trying to achieve, so I'm not sure what (if anything) could be improved. But what would you recommend in terms of process? Draft it, post a note here/somewhere, wait a while for you to review it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Glacial, isn’t it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, a draft RfC must have a minimum 24 hours review period, and a maximum of 7 days.

Commenting on an RfC on a question I am completely unconnected to to very hard work. However, I think commenting on the question would be pretty easy. Mostly the answer would be “yes”. Sometimes “this question doesn’t make sense”. A non-yes answer should be phrased as a suggestion for improvement. An RfC in draft phase for over a week, let alone months, is a failure that should be archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

So it'd be auto-approved if nobody objects within 7 days. A review could reduce the number of RFCs that have "Support" and "Oppose" votes, only the supporters and opposers have the same views. It might also help us head off some of the attempts to copyedit pages by voting for a half-dozen slightly different options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, what do you think about an experiment in which this page is the "noticeboard" for optional pre-RFC reviews? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a good experiment. This shows that drafting is a failure, a fair bit of effort went into it, and for nothing. I think it supports the 1 week time frame for auto-approval, maybe extendable to a second week, but if the discussion-proper is not open by then, then it is a quagmire or abandoned. My thoughts have not been that this question-review period is about "heading off" something, but just that quality of the question correlates with quality of the discussion. Also, that consensus decision-making involves compromise often involving the phrasing of the question.
This page, WT:RfC, as the noticeboard? You mean proposed RfCs will be listed as a thread on this page, with discussion on the question to be put on the article talk page? I think that sounds good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

WT:RFC as the noticeboard. I've made a section for it below, and I've linked to it in WP:RFC and at

WP:AN. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)