Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 20

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

Hi, I've never done an RfC before, but I believe that it is the best option to solve a series of closely related issues. I'd like to ask some help on how to set this up. The two main issues I would like to resolve are

1. when we Wikipedians should "count" a language as an official language for listing and categorisation purposes or not;
2. whether, which and how to merge about 18 existing lists of official languages which are highly duplicative,
   WP:REDUNDANTFORKs
   .

About the first, Austronesier and I have had a passionate but respectful disagreement at Talk:Dutch language#Official language of the Netherlands. At the "French-speaking" CfR, I summarised our exchange so far as follows: As far as I know, there is no consensus yet in English Wikipedia when we count a certain language as having the status of "official language". (Austronesier and I discussed this at Talk:Dutch language, without really reaching an agreement. TL;DR I think we need to be able to point to a legal text declaring Dutch the official language of the Netherlands (de jure); Austronesier thinks is it sufficient if multiple RS say "Dutch is the official language of the Netherlands", even if there is no law we can necessarily point to, but the government uses Dutch all the time (de facto)). We are still figuring this out. I would not be opposed to including the four countries mentioned in the list for now until there is a consensus. The conversation only stopped because Austronesier was too busy, but would like to resume it later. At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 18#Category:Hindi-speaking countries and territories, Austronesier and I agreed to resume this later, and that official languages can play an important role in categorisation of languages by country and territory. This is especially the case for renaming and rescoping all subcategories of Category:Countries and territories by official language, which is currently in full swing, and generally has support, but also runs into various challenges. We also agree that it's not always clear when we should count this or that language as "official" in country X, or territory Y. Differences (not all of which we have discussed yet) include de jure and de facto status (e.g. not enshrined in the constitution or a regular law, but in practice used by the government in its communication with its own various institutions, its citizens, companies, NGOs, etc.; the UK, USA, AU, NZ and the Netherlands are all countries without de jure countrywide official languages), official language versus national language, officially (constitutionally/legally) recognised/protected minority/regional languages (this often has to do with the medium of instruction at schools across the country), co-official languages at sub-national levels like municipalities, and so on. Although I would like to continue this discussion with Austronesier, they don't have a lot of time right now, and I think we need larger participation to really establish a consensus anyway. So a broader discussion – and eventual conclusion – seems necessary.

About the second, I've identified about 22 lists of official languages which mostly

I think that an RfC is the only option remaining. How should I formulate the two questions and what solutions should I propose? Thanks in advance! Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@

Walt Yoder: pinging you for your information, as you are the only two editors who have really shown an interest in the bigger picture, and addressing the structural issues. I thank you for your feedback, comments and advice so far. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 07:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw, this is kind of a long list of problems. I wonder how much of this could be amicably resolved. For example, you say that they are unsourced, so can you add some sources? (I assume that nobody is objecting to you adding sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, in many cases that can be done. But there is no reason to do that 18 times over and over, let alone by using incompatible or no definitions of "official language" in our reliable sources. These two primary issues need to be solved first, otherwise we're solving nothing. The unsourced/synth issues are secondary. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite confident it can be resolved amicably, actually. I've got no harsh feelings against anyone, and the fact that so far I got people to agree to delete 4 of the lists already, suggests a lot of them agree with the issues I have identified in particular cases. I just wish more people would be interested in looking at the bigger picture. But with a volunteer project like Wikipedia, I cannot demand anyone's attention. I just need to find the right approach to catch their attention in a way they like to engage with these issues. The RfC may be the best option for it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If you think that the lists being unsourced is not of immediate importance, then you shouldn't mention that (at all) in the RFC question. An RFC question needs to be scoped tightly to the specific thing you want to learn.

It sounds like what you want to learn is whether it's possible to have an official language of a country without any government official officially declaring it to be one. For example, is English an "official" language in the US, or is it only a "national" language? Does that sound like the question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is one partial way of phrasing the first question when we Wikipedians should "count" a language as an official language for listing and categorisation purposes or not. The question should also include when regional/local/minority languages "count" as "official".

I guess you're right that the unsourced/synth issues aren't of primary relevance to the second question, and thus to the RfC as a whole, because these are fixable problems once we have solved the primary issues. I'll remove them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that we need the same rules for categories as for article content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I'm striving for agreement between the items included in each List of countries and territories where Fooian is an official language and the items included in each Category:Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. The list can confirm the membership of each item with

WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Which is evidently why my CfRs to rename them all from Fooian-speaking to where Fooian is an official language have been receiving such strong support in recent weeks. So yes, I think (list) articles and categories should follow the same rulers. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 20:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language, I've received some indirect support for an RfC by Visviva and SportingFlyer, and also the following comment by Barnards.tar.gz: Merge. I cannot tell exactly which article to merge it to, but I’m supportive of Nederlandse Leeuw’s efforts to rationalise this cluster of related articles. This confirms to me that more people are starting to look at the bigger picture. This makes me glad, and encourages me to further explore the possibility of an RfC. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Given all of this, I'm not sure that you really need an RFC at all. A handful of Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers should get you everything you want.

But if you were determined to have an RFC for bureaucratic reasons, then I think should should handle the first question separately. Try something like:

"We have multiple lists and categories about official languages (example, example). Sometimes they use different definitions (e.g., one list includes ____ as the official language of ____, but the next does not, because it is a de facto official language rather than a statutory official language). I propose that all lists and categories follow the same definition: ______. This would include [example] and exclude [other example]".

After that, I suggest adding a complete list of all potentially affected lists and categories. There may be some complexities around this (e.g., what if we had a "list of de facto official languages", and your proposal was to exclude de facto official languages?), but I think that overall it just sounds like you want an endorsement for your approach to the area, and any such complexities could be sorted out.

(If you decide to run an RFC, please avoid setting this one up like a vote.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it may sound like a consensus is emerging, but this is just a tip of the iceberg. It really does not yet solve the underlying problems just because some people have suggested an RfC might be a good idea. I have no idea if these three people are going to agree with me on de jure official languages or with Austronesier on de facto official languages, for example. I'm just relieved some people are starting to find the bigger picture interesting instead of what should happen to list X.

Your proposed formulations of the questions do help a lot, so thanks for that already. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language closed as Merge. Is this a confirmation that the RfC should go ahead (because it shows we should be merging more of these lists, and we still haven't established when a language "counts" as "official"), or do you think it's better if I nominated, say, List of countries by the number of recognized official languages for a merger next (because that is a logical next small step, that may better inform our next big step i.e. an RfC)? Thanks for the advice you've given me so far. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@

List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language has been merged. My reason for recommending a delay is: Some editors will vote against you/your proposed mergers if they think you are piling up work for other people to do, instead of doing it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 09:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thanks for the tip. There is a lot I don't know about merging processes yet, so this advice is quite helpful.

Firstly, I did intend to use

WP:MERGEREQ

or something?

Secondly, I wouldn't want to give off the impression that I'm trying to have other people do my work, so I understand your recommendation. But, am I expected to carry out the merger of

List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language into List of official languages by country and territory? If I had proposed Merge and the result had been Merge, it makes sense I should have that responsibilty (and I would have taken it up). However, I nominated the former for deletion, but the AfD closed as a merge. Am I expected to carry out a merge I didn't propose? I am prepared to take up my responsibility (if I have it), but it would seem odd to me if a nominator can be tasked to carry out a result they didn't propose. Because they are an involved party, and might be tempted to "sabotage" the process that didn't go the way they wanted, but are nevertheless expected to carry out. That's why I think I (as nom) shouldn't do it in this case. See what I mean? I'm just relatively new to the rules and conventions for merging, so I appreciate your help. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk

) 15:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

On the first point, you can ping all the editors who participated in a previous related discussion (must be all of them, or as nearly all of them as humanly feasible), or you can advertise it elsewhere (e.g., Village pump or a WikiProject's talk page). If there is no response after a few weeks, you could just proceed with the merge.

Secondly, you personally don't have a specific or defined responsibility to perform the merge, but I do think it needs to get done soon. It's not your duty, but if the merge doesn't happen, that fact could derail your future plans. It would be very practical for you to do it, even though you aren't required to do it. (Pinging Visviva, who mentioned just redirecting it in the AFD). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for the tips, this helps a lot. I'll get back to this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

An editor has recently opened an RFC here. There was no current or recent discussion (the last one was May), so this fails RFCBEFORE, and the RFC itself is malformed (no category, a very un- neutral statement). What’s the process for dealing with these? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat, it looks like the immediate problem was solved by removing the tag, but I wanted to add that a discussion a mere two months ago probably counts, and RFCBEFORE isn't absolutely mandatory anyway (it is "only" a very, very good idea). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Usually editors ignore issues and just comment. Although that's not the ideal many times. The RFC guidance is just an information page, which means it's not as binding as guidelines or policies. But many times it is enforced. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the things I value about experienced editors is their skill in navigating sub-optimal RFC questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think a valid issue would be of more importance and "Malformed" might be from a lack of knowledge. WhatamIdoing is correct about the RFC guidance, "RFCBEFORE isn't absolutely mandatory anyway (it is "only" a very, very good idea)" and Thinker78's "just an information page", especially the part about "But many times it is enforced.".

These "other pages",

WP:NOTHERE

. An editor can (I am pretty sure "and has") receive sanctions of blocking or banning for not being here. But it is just an essay!!

A valid point (I think) is that these should not be summarily dismissed unless someone is attempting to invoke one that is clearly subordinate to a policy, guideline, is actually not relevant, or is just some form of smoke.

Just recently I saw a close, and rebuke, I support: "Requests for Comment (RfCs) are used to reach consensus on issues after other types of discussions have failed to produce consensus. Please review WP:RfC. This should've been posted as an ordinary topic on this talk page, not an RfC".

It would be better (in my opinion and likely shared by some) if there was mention in the lead of "Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC" (from the body). This could potentially forestall some unnecessary RFC's. It does seem to be acknowledged that many only read the lead of an article. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have wondered if it's the other way around with policies and similar pages. For example, a surprising number of editors do not seem to know what "original research" means, and it is defined in the second sentence of that policy. Far more editors can explain SYNTH than can correctly identify OR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

In fairness to the editors who don't understand WP:NOR, it is the most horrible mess of a policy. It's full of what linguists call false friends: terms like "primary sources" that editors learned about at university, but here they have Wikipedia's own, idiosyncratic meanings. (Unless, apparently, you happen to be a historiographer.) NOR is our second-worst policy, after NOT, which is just a thinly-disguised bucket list of things some editors don't want other editors to do.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

How do I ask multiple-question RfCs?

Do I put the questions all in one RfC, or do I start separate RfCs on them (as long as their subject doesn't overlap significantly)? — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Please try to avoid starting several RfCs at the same time. RfCs use up a lot of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you follow me. Which isn't to say don't use RfC -- please do! -- but just be mindful of doing so efficiently. One big RfC is better than several small ones. Wherever possible ask fewer, broader questions instead of small granular ones that try to give the community a menu of options. So for example, instead of asking "Is the Spartan 3000 a Special Force Unit or a Quick Response Unit?", it's better to ask "How should we describe the Spartan 3000?"—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Got it, thanks. Actually I'm going to use 3O for the second question in the dispute I'm in right now, as that one only involves two editors, it's split off into its own topic, that would leave me down to one question to ask in the RfC. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  If you'd like to get some help writing a clear question, please feel to ask for help here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Related: User talk:Redrose64#Apologies! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers everyone!

I have another question I want to ask here: after starting an RfC, can I write my own comment, as well as invite an editor from the dispute that I was involved in to add their comment as well?

The reason for me wanting to do this to provide uninvolved editors with an insight as to what to consider when writing their comment.

To make sure not to

canvass the RfC, the editor that I choose to invite will have an opposing opinion to me, and furthermore I will only invite one or two other editors. — AP 499D25 (talk)

00:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Pro and con. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen two discussions recently, both started by less-experienced editors (e.g., 500–1,000 edits, accounts around a year old), that claim in the section heading to be an RFC, but they aren't. They were never tagged, the bot never listed them, FRS participants were never notified, etc. Both were on high-traffic pages (one at a Village pump and the other a COVID-19 article). In one case, I eventually corrected the section heading to indicate that it wasn't an RFC; in another, a more experienced editor added the tag and triggered the bot processes.

Has anyone else seen this happening? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I see it all the time, along with untagged RMs and untagged protected edit requests. Changing the heading or adding the tag both seem like reasonable responses, depending on the context. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If a non-RFC gets archived with an RFC-claiming section heading, that could be a bad thing later. Editors do rely on the section headings to be truthful when they're searching for prior RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

An editor has made several comments recently about RFCs being a tool for Wikipedia:Canvassing, e.g., "The RfC system, in the case of infobox discussions, has basically become a canvassing system". (I don't want to single out the editor because I think it can be important to hear criticism without making people justify and explain their concerns.)

Starting an RFC is obviously not a letter-of-the-law violation, but does anyone have any ideas about how to prevent such problems, or the perception of such problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• I can see how this arises. If there's a noticeboard where likeminded editors gather, then a neutral RfC notification on that noticeboard will affect the outcome... so for example, if I was starting an RfC aimed at removing the word "pseudoscience" from Bigfoot, someone placing a neutral notification on WP:FT/N might just possibly have the tiniest negative effect on my chances of success? It's only a problem where a WikiProject that gets these notifications takes a collective view that conflicts with our norms. I don't know how to solve it.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I believe that idea was that the RFC itself, merely by existing, is a form of canvassing. Consider a possibility like "If you start an RFC that appears on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture and is about infoboxes, you are canvassing an audience known to support a particular POV about infoboxes, because a lot of POV-ish editors decided to put that page on their watchlists". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply and Worthy of exploring. Just the idea would make one cringe. I will state, with more than surmising, that there will always be those that can and will exploit things to gain an edge.

"An editor has made several comments". Examples seem plausable. S Marshall's comments indicate an agreement that instances can arise and the examples are valid. This means there is a chance the editor is not trying to make trouble but sees, from his or her point of view, that there is a problem. In this case, it seems to me that a message on the editor's talk page, asking if there is interest in discussing this issue and possibly directing that editor here. ::If this editor joins in there would be four in some agreement so more than conjecture. At this point, other editors can see links to discussions that are apparently causing concern. This sounds like something that absolutely should be brought to the community for discussion. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's worth bringing to the community unless there's something we can do about it.

So far, we have someone speculating that the "wrong" side could be prevailing at certain RFCs because too many editors with the "wrong" POV follow widely advertised discussions in which all editors are invited to participate.

What could be done about that? We can't ban sitewide discussions. We can't hide the fact that RFCs are happening from the "wrong" editors. Unlike the FTN example, there's no Wikipedia:Infobox preservation noticeboard or Wikipedia:Disinfobox opposition noticeboard here. We're talking about neutral notices to an audience whose views are unknown (e.g., to the Wikipedia:Feedback request service bot) – exactly the kind of thing that CANVAS supports. So – what then? The whole thing could just be a case of someone with a minority POV blaming the majority for being in the majority (I don't happen to know this editor's view or which way these RFCs have generally turned out), but beyond saying that majority vote isn't always a good way to handle complex content questions [see *Example], I'm not sure what to do.

[*Example: It's not difficult to find sources that say that various religious practices like prayer are pseudoscientific, but if you look at the definition of Pseudoscience, it's obvious that such sources are wrong/imprecise, because religion does not claim to be scientific, and claiming to be scientific is an integral part of what it means to be pseudoscientific. We'd normally use Wikipedia:Editorial discretion and find other sources, but a large discussion would likely attract support for including what amounts to a claim that religion claims to be scientific.] WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I largely agree with this; if you are notifying a group of editors whose collective opinion diverge from the broader communities, then this is going to produce the same effect as canvassing; it is going to make it less likely that the result of the discussion will be one the broader community will agree with. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I would disagree with RFCs inherently as canvassing. They can be engineered by editors to make canvassing more possible, but the most effective way to canvas is to post notices to familiar editors you know would take a certain side. Or put a reddit post up. This, however, is the easiest way to get caught for canvassing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing. I would add, I think many disputes tend to skip DRN completely and go straight to RfC. If consensus is supposed to act as a safety net, the aspect that makes it "safe" seems to be that consensus is supposed to be viewed through the lens of policy, ie "The quality of arguments is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." So in essence, it seems to come down to quality of the "RfC closers" that ultimately decide. But how many RfCs have you witnessed where the minority argument (vote!) ultimately get their way, even if they make the "better" argument? DN (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are perceived more as a vote now than ever before, IMO. The kerfuffle over

WT:NOT is an example of this: An alternative suggested later in the discussion, and not (AIUI) opposed by anyone, was accepted by the closing admin, with the result that some editors are complaining that it's invalid and couldn't possibly represent consensus, because the editors who commented in the early days of the RFC didn't get a chance to vote on it. (Apparently, editors who comment on RFCs don't know how to use a watchlist, but that's a complaint for another day.) WhatamIdoing (talk

) 03:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The

WP:NOT situation is slightly more complicated than that; earlier !votes indirectly opposed the later proposal but weren't taken into consideration because they weren't direct votes, and the later proposal was explicitly presented as workshopping for a future RfC, not a proposal to be considered in that RfC. BilledMammal (talk

) 04:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I added some guidance reflecting apparent practice that I stumbled on last year. Also, some RfCs might look like they are unrelated to the noticeboard and may be removed, depends on the interpretation of the posting editor and the removing editor. For context, see this notice in my talk page, relating to this post. I started a discussion at the time in this page titled, Removal of my rfc publicizing from noticeboard. Notice how Nightenbelle says "you wouldn't go to the administrator's noticeboard to advertise an RFC either", which appears to contradict Jc37 previous revert rationale. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The advice doesn't feel actionable. It's sort of "Caution: There is a secret list of noticeboards that will reject your notice". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this has been happening enough to require guidance. And when it does happen, there's usually a natural learning moment where those at the noticeboard redirect the user elsewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Scenario: an RfC at a WikiProject ends with a clear consensus closure involving a healthy amount of editors. Consensus—local, but nothing that would contravene WP's MOS—was to remove material which contravened

@Mac Dreamstate, is this question about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC on readding upcoming fights in professional boxing record tables or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles or is there another one of these happening right now?

Ultimately, the details don't matter, though: Any editor is allowed to use the centralized RFC advertising system to find out what the community's current view is. Should an editor doubt that a previous discussion actually reflects the community's current view (which

WP:BLOCK, but in principle it's a good thing for editors to get their questions answered. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

First one. There's getting questions answered, and then there's essentially saying "Screw your consensus of three months. I stayed out of the first RfC despite being invited, but now I want another RfC because

it's important

."

I will add that I'm not looking for outside involvement ("Wahh wahh, someone doesn't like my editing!")—nothing of the sort. All I'm looking for is guidance and an opinion because this is the first time I've encountered a near-immediate second-round RfC in my eight years of dealing with them. I want to ascertain what my next steps should be, if any; at least other than to re-affirm the outcome of the first RfC which was the result of extensive discussion, time, and effort. So if that involves rounding up the same editors as last time without canvassing, then OK. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, sometimes someone genuinely believes that the first RFC didn't capture the true view of the community, and in those cases we do want them to be able to open another community-wide discussion. It's usually best in such cases to let it run its course. If a previous RFC recently came to a clear conclusion, then usually (but not always) the result is the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I emphasize the link Whatamidoing shared,

WP:CCC

,

Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Naked requests for reconsideration (a request for a new conclusion without any new facts or arguments) are not acceptable. We talk a lot here about the need to make the best use of volunteers' time and asking the community to decide the same thing twice is not that. There are plenty of cases where a repeat would be reasonable (question asked a different way to get more participation, significant new arguments that didn't appear to be considered last time, etc.), but the case in point here doesn't seem to have any of that.

I don't think that the opener's failure to participate in the original RfC affects the appropriateness. Making that a bar to opening an RfC just looks like an attempt to punish someone for not contributing to the original RfC by proceeding as if consensus is different from what it really is. (But I'll admit I'm having trouble envisioning why someone who apparently cares so much would deliberately not participate in an RfC, so maybe I'm not seeing the issue clearly). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Another situation in which we see repeat RFCs is if the original(s) didn't come to a clear conclusion. Sometimes people would rather take a break and try again later instead of extending a discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This is the part specifically that bewilders me—how they've gone about it, rather than their disagreement with the consensus of the first RfC. Had they participated in that one, which was active for two months, when clearly invited to do so, their points of view would've been taken on board and discussed at length. And amongst an eventual five-editor consensus with no dissent, we did discuss at length. I'm not saying RfCs shouldn't be restarted, but restarting one after having ducked out of the first one just seems petulant. .. and now I'm sounding petulant about someone else being petulant. What can ya do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

They might not know of any other way to go about it. Just because those of us with 10+ years experience and many tens of thousands of edits know better ways doesn't mean that everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• We do sometimes use RfCs to resolve intractable questions and everlasting disputes, and I think it's best if we don't decide that all RfCs can be relitigated a couple of months later. I suggest rules of thumb: (1) If there was an RfC in the last six months you should talk to the closer of that RfC before listing a fresh one, and (2) If they say no you should use the close challenge procedure rather than listing a fresh one, and (3) If the RfC was listed at WP:CENT and closed with consensus for a particular outcome, you shouldn't ask the same question for a year, unless something substantive has changed such as the publication of an important new source.—S Marshall T/C 20:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that even when ArbCom has (very rarely) declared that an RFC's result will be temporarily binding, they say that's for six months (or maybe a whole year once). I don't think that this unusual and extreme event should be taken as the ideal for everyday RFCs. The person opening the second RFC sometimes is completely unaware of the first. Even when they are fully aware, sometimes it takes a different question to resolve the dispute. Consider Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC and Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 7#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead? Between the summary of the first and the opening of the second wasn't even three weeks – but the outcome has been respected ever since. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  If I was participating in that RfC, then for several reasons, I would advocate using the picture of the lady with her clothes on. So the second close was "right", in my view. It's not needful for Pregnancy to open with a photo of a woman's nipples. From my perspective, repeating that RfC corrected an error.

  Nevertheless, I'm personally a bit revolted by that. I do recognize that it was way back in 2011 when things were different. But Power Users Overrule Community: Doc James Gets Jimbo Wales to Reverse RfC would make an unpleasant Signpost headline. Squicky, shouldn't happen, and I wish it never did. I'm reminded of the occasion when the community reached a decision to remove "Verifiability, not truth" from WP:V and bloody SlimVirgin actually reverted that decision and actually reopened the whole discussion. I'm sure she felt perfectly justified, and I'm sure Doc James and Jimbo Wales did in the discussion we're considering, but the fact that power users feel justified doesn't make their behaviour okay.

  RfCs are made of humans and humans make mistakes, so of course there must be a way to correct RfCs when they're wrong. But the purpose of an RfC is to resolve a question so we can move on. RfCs can't do their job if we put an easy back door into every decision we make.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest that it's not "an easy back door"; it's long-standing policy that

  Wikipedia:Consensus can change – at any time, including shortly after a previous RFC concluded (assuming it has a conclusion; the first at Talk:Pregnancy concluded with no consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk

  ) 23:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  That certainly is policy, and it's one of our best policies! Succinct as well as clear. My position has all four feet on its second sentence.

  There's a tension. On the one hand we have to make sure we can correct a mistake, but on the other hand some Wikipedians get quite stuck on a point, and want to repeat discussions until they reach the "right" outcome.

  For an example of the latter, consider the RfC on who won the Battle of Chawinda?. When an editor approached me to challenge that outcome, I treated it as a close review (here). Imagine if he had received advice that he can just start a fresh RfC, though.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, new development. What happens when this happens? I may have been around a decent while, but I haven't seen conduct like this before. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert it. It is utterly inappropriate to remove other contributors comments, and making substantive changes to the wording of an RfC after it has been responded to is likewise unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What Grumpy said; and if they object, direct them to

WP:TPO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 18:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The editor has fixed the mistake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Not quite. They've still entirely re-factored their original RfC statement: [1]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully that means that it now complies with

WP:RFCBRIEF. (The original version didn't.) Changing the "question" after people have started commenting can be a problem, but with the original one being several hundred words long, we're going to have a problem one way or the other. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 23:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Except that the original statement was straight to the point, also both neutral and brief; whereas the change of RfC question had this effect on the listing entry. Significantly less brief, decidedly not neutral, and much more opaque - it begins with I understand this change was caused by ..., with no indication what "this change" might be, and you need to wade through five sentences before you reach the actual request. Notifying Faren29 to ensure that they are aware of this discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The original statement was hundreds of words long. The one-sentence question was my temporary fix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I did this right; was I supposed to sign ? Will the wikilink foil the bot? Can someone fix if necessary? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, it looks like it's working now. The bot needs the date/time from a signature but does not require any individual's username. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks; so I could have just timestamped it I guess. Oh, well ... thx again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You can remove your name from it, if you want. (The bot will update the listings to match, usually within 15 minutes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Within one hour - Legobot normally runs its RfC task at xx:01. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

On 05:59, 8 October 2023, I made an edit with the rationale, "moved threaded discussion to threaded discussion section". User:M.Bitton made a revert, with the rationale, "That discussion was part of the !vote (essential for context)". I don't quite understand the revert or its basis or whether it is correct or not. Can someone illuminate the issue? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you moved my comment without my authorization and in any case, why wait until now to pretend (yes pretend) that you have an issue with it? Do you expect me to believe that what your sudden care for what happened weeks ago has nothing to do with the crap that you left on my talk page yesterday? The word pathetic doesn't even begin to describe what you're doing here. M.Bitton (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thinker78 and @M.Bitton, most RFCs don't have separate sections for voting and discussion, and even in the minority that do, there is no RFC-specific rule at the English Wikipedia that prohibits editors from carrying on conversations wherever they want. (That rule does exist at the German Wikipedia, but not here.)

Thinker, I suggest that you look at the FAQ at the top of this page and think about how many of the ideas mentioned there might prove to be practical and relevant advice about How to Win Friends and Influence People. I suggest in particular that if you have any reason to suspect that even one of the other editors might view you as "the opposition", you should not be clerking the discussion (e.g., rearranging comments or deciding when it's over) at all. You can be absolutely correct, but it's better to step back and let others take the lead (and the blame) in deciding what the result is.

Bitton, for future RFCs, unless you are expecting comments from, say, 30 or more editors, please consider not having any subsections. The fact that a ===Threaded discussion=== subsection exists (not to mention providing a labeled list of voting options) encourages editors to believe that you wanted threaded discussion in a different place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, separating a discussion into votes and threaded discussion rarely works, because contributors won't follow that format. They can't resist explaining their vote, in a place where readers will see it, and when someone disagrees with an explanation, can't resist appending an argument to it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#To create an Editor Communication Feedback noticeboard that may be of your interest. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This proposal is somewhat similar to the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Creating a new Close review page (CLRV/RFCRV) to be split from AN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

We explain how to relist RfCs but we don't offer any guidance on when it's appropriate to relist them. I think perhaps we should?—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

We haven't added it yet because it's not a source of disputes. Adding unnecessary advice is

WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Should I wait until the current AfDs are closed? Should I start an RfC and note it in the AfD discussion? I was thinking of maybe starting the RfC on a talkpage of something like Category:Landforms of Antarctica as this would probably include many of the relevant pages. JMWt (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you WAIT. Let the AFDs play out before you open an RFC. Otherwise you will likely be accused (by one side or the other) of “venue shopping” to influence the outcome of the AFDs (even though this isn’t your intent). Also, the outcome of the AFDs can help focus the discussion in a subsequent RFC. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. JMWt (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In the meantime, @JMWt, I don't see any pages like a List of beaches in Antarctica, and you might consider making those. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying or why it is relevant to this discussion about a RfC. JMWt (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's our official policy that Wikipedia is best when it contains as much "accepted knowledge" as possible. Therefore, Wikipedia is worse when appropriate, encyclopedic, accepted knowledge is completely removed.

If you are concerned about the existence of separate articles about accepted knowledge for subjects you believe are unimportant, then you're more likely to meet your goal if you provide people with an alternative that meets the policy requirement to

WP:PRESERVE accepted knowledge while also getting rid of the separate page. Generally, this means creating something like a List of mountain passes in Antarctica (to which existing articles can be merged and redirected) than by removing information completely from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made one of my periodic runs through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines again, and I found (as usual) a lot of inappropriate listings. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yapperbot is set to pick up new listings once an hour, which means that people who sign up Wikipedia:Feedback request service#Wikipedia policies and guidelines and similar categories get a lot of irrelevant notifications. Since the bot runs every hour, preventing that would require someone to check and correct the listings once an hour, which is unreasonable.

I wonder what you would all think, therefore, about asking Naypta to have the bot run less frequently. RFCs usually run for several weeks, so a delay of even a full day should make no real difference to the outcome. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not following you. How would running once a day improve the situation? Is someone going to check and correct the listings each time they update, or are we just talking about the people who are invited to comment finding that the request is off-topic and recategorizing it? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

If the bot runs once an hour, we have, on average, 30 minutes to notice and correct a problem before incorrect notices are distributed.

If the bot runs once a day, we will have, on average, 12 hours to notice and correct a problem before incorrect notices are distributed.

I'm not sure that anyone is frequently checking all the RFCs, but editors do notice and fix individual problems as they appear (e.g., on a page that is already in their watchlists). IMO, even if the problem is something as simple as the formatting limitations for an RFC, it would be better to send correct notices than incorrect notices, and a delay of some hours on a multi-week process would be worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I have all of the RfC listing pages on my watchlist, so I notice when new RfCs are added by Legobot. I check every new entry as I reach it on my watchlist, but not necessarily within the hour or even within the day, because I work 5 days a week. Among the things that I check for include objective criteria mainly concerning technical aspecta:

• that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted remains empty
• that the listing entry is non-blank
• that the listing entry is not corrupt
• the link in the entry goes to the actual RfC itself - this detects (i) cases where two RfCs (not necessarily on the same page) have the same rfcid (usually because
  WP:RFC#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page
  was ignored) and (ii) cases where an ongoing rfc is cutpasted from one page to another without resetting the rfcid

If one or more of these fails, I normally edit the RfC to fix the problem directly.

There are also some subjective criteria, if all the above succeed:

• was
  WP:RFCBEFORE
  applied?
• was
  WP:RFCNOT
  violated?
• is the statement neutral and brief?

If one of these fails, I may leave a note in the RfC's discussion, asking the originator to fix it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I made these fixes yesterday: [3][4][5][6] WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If you spot an RfC listed on an inappropriate page (such as an article content discussion listed at

WP:RFC/POLICY. If the removal is delayed, Yapperbot won't revoke the message it previously sent out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 23:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Why doesn't Legobot update the RFC listings? I thought it did (years ago, anyway). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Short answer: if you examine the Legobot source, you will see that there is nothing to delete table rows. Once an RfC category has been associated with an rfcid, that association is permanent.

Long answere: if you add an RfC category param to an ongoing RfC that is already listed under another RfC cat, Legobot will add an entry to the listing page for the new cat. If you remove an RfC category param from an ongoing RfC that is presently listed under that RfC cat, Legobot will not remove the entry from the listing page for that cat. As to why: that is a question for Legoktm. The upshot of this is that if you have an RfC listed on the wrong list, the only way of getting it off that list whilst keeping the RfC open is to trick Legobot into thinking that the RfC has been closed - this is done by removing the |rfcid= param at the same time that you remove the incorrect RfC category. This forces Legobot to issue a new rfcid, and since the old rfcid is no longer used in a {{rfc}} tag, Legobot removes the listing entries. It then creates new listing entries for the new rfcid. The downside to that is that FRS subscribers may be re-messaged, and I have had complaints in the past (yes, complaints to me even though I am nothing to do with the FRS system) from people who were messaged twice about the same RfC. It was the same text, but the rfcids differed so as far as the FRS system was concerned they were different RfCs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

And if you take them out manually, it promptly re-adds them. (I checked.) I suppose that this means that 'the table' isn't stored on wiki. Well, it's suboptimal, but I doubt that it will get fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To the original q: Yapperbot has been sending out the FRS messages since 23 May 2020. Before that, they were sent out by Legobot, which seems to have ceased on 15 December 2019. When it was running the FRS job, Legobot sent out the FRS messages in batches, once a day, beginning at 04:20 UTC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• WRT the idea of reducing the bot to run once a day, I see only upsides.—S Marshall T/C 16:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Considering all the above, I am for once a day.Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Agreed that once a day makes sense. What's more important is that Yapperbot has stopped running entirely as a result of the grid engine shutdown, and it's operator has been de-fact retired since August 2020. I smell Deja Vu here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:RFC does not encourage separate sections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===, because it's usually overkill, and even when it's not, it tends to lead to more "voting" and less "commenting" behavior.

I've been wondering recently about whether we should encourage people to put discussion first, and the voting section afterwards. In particular, I think this would reduce the number of people who vote without even seeing any of the discussion, some of which could be important to them deciding how to vote. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is worth a try on the next large (ish) RFC. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I've tried this order at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way, but (a) there are no responses yet and (b) I'm not sure that it's a 'typical' RFC, so I wouldn't want to extrapolate the response too far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Not experienced in Rfc's, advice or edits much appreciated. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the categories (style/naming is for proposed changes to pages like Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style), and otherwise it looks like you did fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

thankyou! EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody start up an RfC of the same topic if consensus still hasn't been reached? How long after the first RfC was closed is an appropriate amount of time to do that?

If anyone has answers to those questions, those would be good to add to the article. Cmsmith93 (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No community consensus that I'm aware of, and Wikipedia generally dislikes bright lines. The answer to the second question depends on who you ask. The answer to Can somebody start up an RfC of the same topic if consensus still hasn't been reached? is a clear yes; if

consensus can change, certainly "no consensus" can change. ―Mandruss ☎

02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Usually, it's a good idea to wait a few months (perhaps six months, or even a year) before trying again. However, we have had back-to-back RFCs in the past, and sometimes the second (or third) one solves the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, because there's some terminology confusion around and your wording is a little odd: Are you talking about an RfC discussion that was closed with a finding of no consensus, or a discussion that petered out with no apparent consensus and was never closed? (RfCs themselves don't close -- discussions do. But RfCs do end). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to open an RfC to get community input on using Module:Sports table with the rugby style for Rugby Union tables, but thought I should check here first. I started a thread at WikiProject Rugby, but got limited response, with a few editors expressing a desire for "sports table" and one editor disagreeing. Should I open an RfC, or do I already have enough input to decide the issue with the editors who have already commented. I don't want to waste time with an RfC if there is no reason for one. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Frietjes, the conversation there suggests that the problem is primarily with one user's behavior, and that you should try ANI first. However, I understand that you might be reluctant to approach that noticeboard without a quick and easy way for busy folks at ANI to determine what the consensus was.

To my way of thinking, the bottom line is that you have a dispute (even if you think it shouldn't be happening), and you therefore need Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (or which an RFC is a valid and relevant option). Have you thought about how you'd like to word the RFC question? For example, about a single page, a small group, or in general? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be stronger wording to emphasize that before an RfC is initiated (except for proposed policy/sitewide changes), there must have been extensive discussion with multiple participants, a reasonable timespan, and no consensus.

Hi, @

WP:PROPOSAL

), and in some situations, editors are starting an RFC because they have no realistic hope of getting responses otherwise (e.g., on a new or under-watched page). Starting a discussion on the talk page before starting an RFC might not be particularly helpful in some cases.

The goal behind the RFCBEFORE language is mostly to discourage the kind of editor who jumps to an RFC over every little thing. If an ordinary, un-advertised chat on the talk page can answer a question or resolve a problem, then that's best. I think it's the same motivation at MR: don't bother everyone else with a "heavy" process when a quick little chat might be able to take care of it all.

(BTW, since the Wikipedia:Feedback request service has been broken for weeks, I'm not sure that starting an RFC is a particularly effective way to get other people involved in a discussion right now. If there are any RFCs that particularly interest you, I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I specifically wrote above except for proposed policy/sitewide changes. I am well aware that in those cases, it is perfectly acceptable to just go for it, but in most cases, it is not appropriate for editors to jump the gun and treat RfCs as a solution to everything. I say that because many times when I see an RfC pop up, there has only been a preceding one-day-old discussion with two participants and three comments. Also, if editors wish to solicit feedback because they have no realistic hope of getting responses otherwise, an RfC is not appropriate; they should either be BOLD, try

WP:3O, or ask a WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk

) 07:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not always possible. Look at Wikipedia talk:Independent sources/Archive 1#What is an independent source?, which is an RFC I started in 2016. I needed information before editing any further, so I couldn't be bold; there was no dispute or even anyone else talking to me, so 3O is irrelevant; there's no WikiProject to ask. Now what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that was an RfC? Because it sure doesn't look like it. What I would have done, and looks like what you ended up doing, was leave a message on a relevant project-namespace page, such as Wikipedia talk:Independent sources. No reply from anyone? Leave messages elsewhere, like relevant policy pages. Or, as a last resort, a Village pump. An RfC would have definitely been not appropriate in that scenario. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was an RFC; you can see the RFC tag in the page history.

I'm not sure why you think that an RFC is an inappropriate thing to do when an editor is "requesting" actual "comments". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Example: Talk:List of highest-grossing live-action/animated films#RFC on what the criteria for being on this list is. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this happens a lot. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps something stronger like: Editors are expected to discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Make a reasonable attempt to resolve issues prior to starting an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've mocked up the following to replace the text before the bulleted list at

WP:RFCBEFORE

:

RfCs are time-consuming, high-profile, and only used as a last resort when all other means have failed to reach a consensus. Editors must thoroughly discuss a matter on a talk page before initiating an RfC, except for

policy or community-wide proposals

. If a discussion has not lasted for a significant period of time and received input from multiple editors, it has not fully run its course and an RfC is premature. Always try to reach a consensus through normal discussion first, and then consider the following options before deciding to start an RfC:

I would also like to add "if an RfC is initiated prematurely without adequate prior discussion, it will be speedily closed", but that doesn't describe the current practice, so I don't know if others would support that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think this is true. This isn't how RFC works. More importantly, this isn't how humans work. Sometimes it's not appropriate to wait "for a significant period of time" before starting an RFC, because you're letting a serious problem get worse while you wait for the inevitable. Sometimes the main problem is that you have been unable to get that "input from multiple editors" (or at least from more than two others). Sometimes you look at a problem and realize that what's needed is to talk to the broader community instead of chatting with the fanboys who hang out on that particular talk page. Sometimes, in fact, what we need is to get the RFC started as soon as possible.

If you wanted a rule that I think would reflect reality, it would probably say something like "Every editor is entitled to screw up one RFC a year. If you make a habit of it, though, someone will come talk to you, and there's a teeny tiny chance that you'll end up with a TBAN." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

All of your "sometimes" scenarios can be answered with this:

WP:IAR. If there is a situation where a special exception is warranted, then ignore RFCBEFORE. But in the vast majority of cases, it is not appropriate for an editor to disagree with another editor, complain about it on the talk page, receive a response they don't like, and then jump straight to an RfC. Or, using the RfC Redrose64 linked as an example, have a question about an article and jump straight to an RfC rather than making a regular post or asking a WikiProject/Village pump (which is what should have happened). InfiniteNexus (talk

) 03:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The stronger the wording, the harder it is to get people (especially newer editors) to accept IAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this proposed wording? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Is RfCs for this discussion? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 17:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Not at this stage. It's a dispute between two editors and you've only just asked for a third opinion.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

User:S Marshall, I'm sorry, I fixed the link, I meant about this discussion. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There are actually two questions there:

• Should we have a unified symbol for Islam that is used on all relevant pages/templates across Wikipedia?
• If so, should that unified symbol be the Star and crescent symbol, or should it be the Allah word in Arabic script, or something else (e.g., the Shahada)?

I suggest that you limit the first to content spaces (e.g., articles and portals, but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I've added the following text to

Ordinarily, the types of routine discussions below have their own processes which should be followed. In cases where the normal process has failed to produce a consensus, has been especially contentious, or may have a widespread impact, it might be suited for an RfC to attract wider input. RfC tags should also not be added to a discussion that is already taking place in one of these venues.

Editors should note that filing an RfC without first attempting to use the routine processes, or as an attempt to

The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of words to be adding. The more words we put on the page, the less people will read. What problem are you trying to solve? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue that prompted this was the absolute mess over the legitimacy of an RfC for

WP:AN#Close review of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

20:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the sense is correct. If no one beats me to it, I'll get the chance to revise it to say the same thing in about half as many words tomorrow.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it needs to be much shorter, but I think there is some value in saying that RFCs aren't actually banned from these discussions. (Our original point was more like "Look, there's a purpose-built process ideally suited for your routine WP:RM"; the idea that editors are banned from using RFCs when they really need widespread input from the community has never cross my mind.)

@The Wordsmith, thank you for being willing to read through 1.8 tomats of text to summarize that discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm partial to 0.39

WP:RFCNOT was a little different from the text that ended up being written, so I'm trying to clarify. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me}

23:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the good faith addition until language is decided, it seems the explanation which was added is outside the bounds of the RfC closes as well as saying that other requirements need to be fulfilled (remember, the RfC was undertaken after one 2023 RM at

NFL Draft that ended as no-consensus with no move review following). So we can jump from "no consensus" anywhere straight to an RfC which, without the requirement of notifying the pages, would move titles up-to-now reserved for 1) an RM, then 2) a move review. In the newest case, scores of unnotified-but-then-changed pages occurred without an RM or a move review of the 2023 RM. Seems like any added language should be worked out before the wording is included and not before or during a discussion. Randy Kryn (talk

) 23:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So we can jump from "no consensus" anywhere straight to an RfC: Yes, that's how RFCs work. If you can't get consensus with a local discussion, then start an RFC and see if adding some uninvolved editors would help.

An Appeal to consequences (i.e., that if editors are able to reach a consensus, some pages will get moved) is kind of the point of finding consensus, no? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's out my hands. But, I think any changes made here, that (even remotely) suggests an RFC can overturn or bypass an RM, would render the RM process ineffective. GoodDay (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's either true or intended. I don't think that editors should be banned from adding an RFC tag in addition to following the RM discussion.

Also, it'd be self-contradictory to say that editors can use the RFC process to change policies and guidelines, including the

WP:OWNED

by the RM process. There are rare circumstances in which doing both may be appropriate.

In the meantime, I note that WP:RM says "Occasionally the discussions for significant multi-move requests may be hosted on WikiProject talk pages or other pages in Project namespace." Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles certainly counts as "other pages in Project namespace". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked the history. Was the NFL Draft RM result (held in 2023) challenged at WP:AN? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that it's worth you checking, because it doesn't matter. If a prior discussion (of any kind, on any page, using any process) didn't reach consensus, or if any editor believes that consensus has changed since then, then any editor is entitled to start a new discussion. Neither RFCs nor RMs result in binding decisions (except in those rare occasions when ArbCom puts a temporary moratorium on re-discussing it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Either an RM review should occur, if one opposes an RM result or (after at least twelve months) another RM on the same page should be opened. Otherwise, the RM process is potentially rendered ineffective or irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Where do you get the "after at least twelve months" bit? I've never seen such a rule.

Also, when was the last time you saw RM used for a decision that could affect more than a hundred articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RMs should occur with as few as possible pages involved. PS - We're not going to agree on this & circular discussions lead to nowhere. So, best to let other give their input. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that RM is best suited for small numbers of pages. The obvious obverse of that believe is that I agree that RM is not best suited for discussions affecting hundreds of pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Belt-and-suspenders is not an improvement. RFCNOT processes like requested moves are formalized and publicized, not just random local talk page threads. They have well-known centralized noticeboards (i.e.

WP:RFD, etc. themselves), automated article alerts with subscriptions by just about every WikiProject, and banners visible on affected pages. RFC tagging on top of this does not improve it; more is not better. Adumbrativus (talk

) 01:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

AFD, RFD, RM, and other RFCNOT processes are complementary to RfCs in their proper roles, not merely an overlapping pair of channels for litigation and relitigation. Centralized RfCs give generalized guidance on a broad question, and other processes decide ultimate outcomes of articles taking individualized circumstances into account.

No-consensus and contentiousness are not sufficient to turn the ordinary into the extraordinary. No consensus is a normal outcome of AFD, RFD, RM, and other discussions, not a failure. Controversy is a dime a dozen. Widespread impact, beyond the practical limits of RFCNOT's structured processes, is required. At a minimum, a question is broad enough only if a large bundled discussion about the same question is impossible due to

I don't think that trainwrecks are the only possibility. Consider:

• You can have an RFC to change the
  WP:LOWERCASE
  policy to give an example of NFL drafts as an example of correct use of your preferred case. Result: Potentially, several hundred pages get moved.
• But allegedly: You can't have an RFC to decide to move those same pages, unless some of them would get moved and others wouldn't (a "trainwreck")?

That doesn't make any sense. I suggest that when you are already doing something extraordinary (discussing whether to change the capitalization on hundreds of pages at once), then using an extraordinary process is permissible. A move that could affect hundreds of pages, and that has already been discussed multiple times in the past, is a good candidate for an RFC that got comments from 50 editors, rather than the five or ten that RM normally elicits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The 2023

WP:IAR decision. So let's call it what it is and ascertain if this entire episode improves and maintains Wikipedia, the criteria for an IAR. Randy Kryn (talk

) 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 NFL draft#Requested move 27 April 2023 has 82 comments from 24 accounts, including the closing summary. If you turn on "Discussion tools" in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures then it'll count everyone for you.  :-)

We are talking about what RFCNOT ought to say. It is therefore not especially helpful to treat the current wording of RFCNOT as some sort of

statute that needs to be carefully adhered to. The real policy (and this page isn't even a guideline) is what editors actually do and accept, not what words we wrote down in an attempt to describe our usual practices and best advice. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree: Editors should not...start RfCing any and every failed RM – or even 10% of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Redraft

RFCs don't replace other community processes. If there's a relevant specialist process, such as AfD, use that instead. A table of specialist processes is set out below.

On rare occasions, when Wikipedians reach consensus that a specialist process isn't the right approach, they might decide to use RFC instead. When this happens, open a full RFC in the normal way. Please do not add RFC tags to a pre-existing discussion that uses a different process.

How's that?—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on the requirement to first have consensus to hold an RfC to establish consensus; that doesn't seem to be how things typically happen. RfCs generally have a presumption of legitimacy, unless there's a strong consensus otherwise. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I intended to prevent a lone editor from deciding to start a RFC instead of an RM.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think The Wordsmith is right. We don't generally have a problem with this, so creating rules about it is

WP:CREEPY

, and it may obstruct reasonable solutions.

I'm also not sure that we should prohibit RFC tags in combination. This is rare, but I think it happens about once a year or so, and it's not always a bad idea. For example, if a question can't be resolved during a GA review, it might be suitable for an RFC, and it might make more sense to "physically" place it in the GA subpage. Similarly, there's an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists right now. It's simultaneously "about" a single page, and 367 pages, and FL criteria. It would be easy for an editor to lodge procedural objections by claiming it's "using a different process". Even though (in this particular instance) it's not intended to be covered (because this is a pre-nomination discussion, rather than a discussion while a nom is pending), this introduces the opportunity to wikilawyer over whether or not the discussion can be advertised. At best, it will be a distraction; at worst, we'll have to first find consensus to determine whether the discussion is allowed to happen.

(Also, "full RFC" may be confusing, by making people wonder what a "partial" one is.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it could be shortened to On rare occasions, a specialist process isn't the right approach and editors might decide to use RFC instead. When this happens, open an RFC in the normal way. I do think keeping the last sentence about not adding tags to an existing discussion is good, that's within the spirit of the original reason RFCNOT was written. In your GA review example, an RFC might be better off on the article talkpage or subpage rather than directly added to the GAR itself. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether to add an RFC tag to an existing discussion vs to start a new section is something that should be decided case-by-case.

I wonder whether it would be sufficient to just say "On rare occasions, a specialist process isn't the right approach and editors might decide to start an RFC". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, it's regrettable that the community has chosen to accept the move of

NFL Draft (and related pages) to NFL draft (and related pages) via RFC, bypassing the RM process & overturning the last RM result on that page. But they have & so be it. My only concern here, is that it doesn't become a precedent (i.e. using an RFC to bypass the RM process or overturn an RM result) for other editors to follow. GoodDay (talk

) 16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Meh… I don’t see much difference between RM and RFC… the RM process is useful, but ultimately it is simply a version of RFC specifically focused on page moves. Same with AFD… that is just a version of RFC specifically focused on whether to delete. The point is to have community input on the question. What bureaucracy we use to ASK the question is secondary. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with this. JoelleJay (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Tightened:

RFCs don't replace other community processes. Where there's a relevant specialist process, such as AfD, use that instead. A table of specialist processes is set out below.

Occasionally, a specialist process isn't the right approach and editors decide to use RFC. When this happens, start a RFC in the normal way. Please do not add RFC tags to a pre-existing discussion that uses a different process.

Better?—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this may be (mis)understood as encouraging discussion forks. It would be better to have an RM with an RFC tag inside it (or the other way around) than to have an RM in one section and an RFC in the next section – or, worse, on a different page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this may be (mis)understood as encouraging discussion fork: The

WP:FORUMSHOP policy already discourages simulataneous discussions on the same topic. —Bagumba (talk

) 04:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Content forks/Internal#Discussion forks.

The problem is that if WP:RFC directly tells editors that when they "decide to use RFC", they should "start an RFC in the normal way" and definitely "do not add RFC tags to a pre-existing discussion", some of them are going to think that the official directions are telling them that they really ought to abandon the existing discussion in favor of a brand-new RFC, no matter what other pages may or may not say about that behavior as a general practice for everyday, non-RFC-related editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE expects that other options have already been tried:

Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC.

They shouldn't "abandon" an ongoing discussion, but an RfC is fair if it has reached an impasse. —Bagumba (talk

) 05:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, and the question here is whether, if you start with (e.g.):

==Requested move: Foo to bar==

and you decide that an RFC would be helpful, should you choose

===RFC about how to make this consistent across hundreds of pages=== (as part of the original ==Requested move: Foo to bar==)

or

==RFC about hundreds of article titles== (separated, perhaps on a different page).

I believe that "Please do not add RFC tags to a pre-existing discussion that uses a different process" will be interpreted (especially by, but not exclusively by, editors who believe that their side will "lose") as "You aren't allowed to have an RFC as part of the original discussion". Of course, the reason the present discussion exists is because some editors were upset because someone started a separate discussion at the Village Pump. The net result would be that editors would believe you can have an RFC neither as part of the original discussion, nor separated from it. This is not a desirable outcome. The rules should never be written in ways that would lead editors to believe that any content-related subject is excluded from the RFC advertising process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The rules should never be written in ways that would lead editors to believe that any content-related subject is excluded from the RFC advertising process This is the issue that landed us here in the first place. I agree that editors might interpret this language like that. Maybe changing it to inside a pre-existing discussion would clarify that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to ban editors from starting a ===RFC about how to make this consistent across hundreds of pages=== (as part of the original ==Requested move: Foo to bar==)? We could, but we can predict that it will produce complaints about FORUMSHOPPING, especially when the separated, context-hiding subsequent RFC is started by someone who thinks he's "losing" the original discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RM generally stays open for a week or so, RfC usually for 30 days. When this section was originally created, it was because a few editors misunderstood and tried adding an RfC inside of an AFD, which disrupts the process. I don't think we have the power here to ban editors from doing anything, we're just trying to describe the current practice as accurately as we can. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Another redraft

RFCs consume a lot of volunteer time. Where there's a specialist community process, try to use that instead. A table of specialist processes is set out below.

Rarely, a specialist process isn't the right approach and editors decide to use RFC. When this happens, start a RFC in the normal way. It's seldom, but not never, a good idea to add RFC tags to a discussion that uses a different process.

• How's this?—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  As the person who first responded at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 16#Specifying that RfCs should not be listed on AfDs - and indeed, the person who made the revert mentioned in the original post there, I'd like to say that the original point of RFCNOT was not to discourage but to forbid the use of RfCs where an established process exists. So I oppose the text seldom, but not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, okay. I can see no way to reconcile your position with WAID's then.  :(—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't want to see an RFC inside an AFD page, either. But if it's a discussion that you could reasonably have at a Village pump or noticeboard (e.g., "Do you think I have enough sources to turn this {{r with possibilities}} redirect into a decent article?" or "I'm thinking about re-organizing some articles to align with the division of this multinational company. This could involve re-structuring the category tree, and...") then I think it should be possible to have an RFC on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  There may well be something I'm missing. You seem to be in favour of allowing RFCs in RMs, but disallowing them in AfD. Have I understood you right?—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think so. In practice, an individual AFD won't expand to dozens or hundreds of articles. An RM could (and has done). An RM, like an RFC, is a normal, consensus-driven talk-page discussion with some additional mechanisms to support advertising and summarizing the discussion. The results are not constrained to specific options. An RFC should be a possibility in any ordinary, consensus-driven discussion.

  Other processes (e.g., peer review) are not. Peer review is kind of "one person's opinion"; their comments might inspire an RFC, but "Please change Joe's mind because I don't like his advice" isn't really a sensible RFC question . AFDs aren't normal talk-page discussions; the result will be keep/merge/delete. The other XFDs have more scope for creative compromise as a result of discussion, but we haven't needed RFC for them, and when the scope expands to an RFC-level question, we usually close the XFD and start a new discussion (e.g., at the Village pump) instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the main situations we would permit RfCs in place of specialized processes are when a proposal affects a large number of pages--including future pages in some category--but isn't intended to add to/change the text of P&Gs per se (such as when establishing a convention for a particular topic), when the normal processes have repeatedly resulted in no consensus (and consensus for something is desired), and when it's clear broader community input is needed to reach a P&G-compliant outcome. There's plenty of precedent for each of these scenarios, so I prefer this wording acknowledging that our recommendation to use specialized processes isn't absolute. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. A discussion about renaming multiple pages according to a common theme isn't really an RM matter (and I've never seen one that was carried out as an RM), it's a matter of agreeing a naming convention. Once that is agreed (which may well be an RfC matter), you then proceed to moving pages within its scope but whose names don't fit the agreed convention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Another thing that led up to the original RFCNOT proposal was the use of {{

  this RfC at VPT must be the oddest RfC that I've seen in some years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

  ) 09:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well, he's requesting comments, so I guess it's a request for comments. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's one of those things where we clearly didn't intend for it to be used that way, but reading the text plainly without the Wiki-cultural context I can see how someone would interpret it that way (much like this current thread). The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  The original intent probably did include this (soliciting comments on a technical question). A similar request for technical feedback was posted a month after RFC was created (i.e., in 2004). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)