Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment. |
![]() | Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page. |
|
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Format of an RfC
[edit]Does the format of an RfC always have to have a subsection called "Survey" in which people vote and another subsection called "Discussion" in which people discuss or challenge each other's votes/comments? I ask because an RfC that I began on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi looked like this, where you could view what someone's choice was and how they had responded to queries or challenges to that choice. Several editors, including at least two admins, had already responded and replied to queries or challenges. At this point an editor made this edit with edit summary "standard RfC format", whereupon they proceeded to disconnect the vote from the immediate follow up challenges. The format makes a reply/challenge less effective as it is made in a different section by pinging the commenting editor. If they are not able to respond, or choose not to, then it is hard for a third party reader to figure out who is was that was being questioned and who the one not replying. Most editors will not scroll up and down, back and forth, between these sections to evaluate a response. My own feeling is that such a "survey" and "discussion" format makes it very easy to cast facile or unsupported votes.
So, cutting long story short: is this format compulsory? Is it Wikipedia or RfC policy? Look forward to your answers, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It should usually not have such a section. The most popular format has no subdivisions. An RFC is a normal talk-page discussion, and it should therefore not create an artificial separation between votes and interactive discussions. Subdivisions can be useful (e.g., if a very large number of responses is expected), so they're not banned, but they're neither required nor common, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I knew I was reinventing the wheel, and a very wobbly one at that. Thank you very much for that link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should add something to the main page about this? I just checked the open RFCs and found that a majority don't have any sub-sections at all, and only about 20% have separate subsections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===. Of those, I'd say that maybe half were warranted (e.g., Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence with 188 comments so far, or my WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species), which has 452 comments so far). That separation was more common for non-articles.
- Talk:Asmongold#RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? (started by Some1) and Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article? (started by Ad Orientem) were formatted with separate ===Yes=== and ===No=== voting sections, which is standard for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but should be very rare otherwise.
- Perhaps another bullet point in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC, to say something like:
- Most RfCs should not have separate sub-sections for "Survey" and "Discussion" comments. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting for more information.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am emphatically ambivalent on the question of how to format an RfC. That said, I tend to favor legal minimalism. IMHO an RfC should be formatted in whatever way seems most practicable at the time, and then allowed to develop organically. If a section needs to be added, then add it. If there are too many, then go ahead and boldy merge them if such can be done without causing problems. If there is a disagreement, then discuss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like the bullet points you're talking about are the numbered steps to create an RfC, so advice on the discussion format wouldn't fit as another item there. The misnamed section "Example of an RfC" is where advice on formatting of the discussion is. That section implies it's normal not to have survey/discussion format, but if it's important to emphasize that, this is where it would go. It might make sense to refer to this section in step 2 of the instructions. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Incomprehensible RFC
[edit]If I think that an RFC is incomprehensible, due to a combination of grammar errors and sloppy construction, and that an uninvolved administrator should end it, because it isn't useful, where should I make that request? It isn't an urgent conduct issue, and so it shouldn't go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, if you post a link here, someone will usually notice and take care of it.
- This is not an admin's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria, it looks like the editor started the RFC and then spent the next couple of hours trying to clarify the question. That happens sometimes, and while it's unfortunate, it's not really against the rules. If your first attempt isn't making sense, it's really in everyone's best interest if you try to fix it.
- For an analogous situation, think about Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content. We try to give editors some time to fix their mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would describe the sequence as that, first, the editor started the RFC, then other editors criticized it harshly, and then the editor spent the next couple of hours trying to fix it. The difference is that they restated it as a question after being told that it was a poorly formed RFC. The difference is that at least two editors responded and criticized before the originator improved it. I have mixed opinions on whether that matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:WhatamIdoing - Yes, that is the RFC in point, but this is both a question about it and a more general question, because other RFCs are also malformed. Now that the RFC asks a question, it still asks the question in a form that is grammatically garbled, and I still don't think that I can answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the question is whether it's okay to imply that the US is providing weapons to that terrorist group, on the grounds that they have acquired some weapons. It rather reminds me of a line in "The Whisky Priest": "Either you sell arms or you don't. If you sell them, they will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them". The US sells arms; therefore, some of them will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them. Or who scavenge them off battlefields. Or who steal them out of warehouses. Or any of many other ways that these problems can happen. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a Wikipedia article should imply that the US government intentionally, directly, or knowingly provided the weapons to this particular group – unless reliable sources say so, in which case the Wikipedia article should, too. It will ultimately all hinge on the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree the question was unintelligible, even after the attempts to fix it, mainly because of the fractured English. I think I figured out what comments the requester meant to request and have reworded it to say that. Ordinarily, it is a bad idea to make a big change to an RfC statement after 5 days, but I think most editors invited to comment will have skipped this RfC because the RfC statement becomes unintelligible after the fourth word, so it's best to start over.
- I guess we've found another purpose for the RfC talk page beyond discussing the RfC information page: asking for uninvolved editors to help fix an RfC. We previously (by consensus of editors watching this page) extended the purpose to include asking for help in starting an RfC, so it makes sense. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
lower BBC to generally unreliable specifically for hamas israel conflict
[edit]This discussion is off-topic for this page; it is a WP:RSN matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-guidelines-more-1500-times-israel-hamas-warNotQualified (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
|
Disclose relevant RfC via editnotice?
[edit]![]() | This idea is in the brainstorming stage. Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas. |
Should/could a new editnotice template be created to point to one or more closed RfC(s) and their respective outcome(s) for a given article? (naturally excluding "No consensus" ones) This would only be relevant for a handful of pages at any given time.
This would be very helpful in cases where there's an old (and yet still representative), archived RfC on an article's talk page that is still regularly being invoked to restore a given status quo. A brief notice to that effect, could really reduce the amount of similar edits having to be reverted over and over again for some article that happens to be in the public eye at the time.
Yes, a talk page FAQ may serve to do the same, but is less commonly seen or appreciated by newcomers in particular. To be honest, these also sometimes appear very smug and undemocratic to outsiders. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Another way this is done is with a comment near the disputed content that says, "If you're thinking of changing this date, see ... where consensus was found to use this date." That is easier and more visible than an edit notice.
- Side note: sometimes that comment is worded, "Do not change this ..." I find that inappropriate and always delete it. If the order is followed by a reason (such as an RfC), I leave the reason. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
RFC statistics
[edit]If you've ever been curious about past RFCs, see User:BilledMammal/List of RFCs. I think that most of the links won't work, but they should all be findable in the archives via the timestamp. The data is not clean (for example, several of the old RFCs attributed to me were just me making repairs to broken RFC questions), but a few general findings might be fun:
- It's a lot of RFCs, but it's less than it used to be: Almost 17,000 RFCs are listed in this data set, going back to 2007. If you want to see the oldest ones, they were on the main page until about August 2005.
- This list shows 752 RFCs in 2023, 913 in 2022, and 995 in 2021. This is down significantly compared to previous years: 1,249 in 2020 [beginning of the pandemic], 1,311 in 2015, and 1,215 in 2010.
- We are currently on track for a record low (around 700) for this year.
- In the 2010s, we ran about three new RFCs per day. This year, we will average about two new RFCs per day.
- The drop in RFCs is interesting in part because I've seen comments saying that more RFCs are greeted with complaints about being unnecessary, because there are too many RFCs.
- Most people are first-timers: About 9% of RFCs were unsigned. Almost 6,000 logged-in editors started more than 15,000 (~90%) signed RFCs. Something around 250 RFCs (1.5%) were started by IPs.
- Most people have very little experience with starting RFCs. 60% of editors in this list created one RFC. Another 15% have started only two RFCs. 90% of editors in this list have started four or fewer RFCs; they account for half of all signed RFCs.
- Many RFCs were started by someone who was probably trying to read and follow the directions on this page for the first or second time.
- However, some people start a lot more RFCs than normal: George Ho has started about 200 RFCs, though only a few since 2017. Robert McClenon and Snooganssnoogans have each started more than 100 RFCs. The counts fall off rapidly from there. Only a dozen editors have started 50+ RFCs (pinging Cunard, Binksternet, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Helper201, The Four Deuces; note that some high-volume RFC starters are no longer editing at all, and others have been encouraged to find a different way of contributing to Wikipedia), and another 30 editors have created between 25 and 49 RFCs. The numbers really add up: Just 25 editors account for about 10% of the signed RFCs. Just 1% of the people starting RFCs have created 15% of RFCs; each of them has created at least 20 RFCs. If you've heard the saying that 20% of people do 80% of the work, we're not quite that skewed overall; here, 20% of people start 60% of RFCs.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will certainly look at these statistics. I have been a professional user of statistics, and I usually like to look at statistical reports. I have started a lot of RFCs because most of them have been the quasi-resolution of content disputes that I was mediating. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's typical for some of the higher-volume RFC starters. As I said in the first paragraph, not every RFC attributed to me in this dataset is actually "from" me. I've also been asked to be the person who starts RFCs, since I'm extremely familiar with the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the RfCs I've started have been in the course of acting as a guideline shepherd, to resolve questions about the wording or interpretation of a guideline (or occasionally policy), most often an MoS page. I don't often start RfCs that pertain to something mainspace-localized (e.g. the wording of an article's lead, or which photo should be used in a bio article). I do respond (via WP:FRS) to many such RfCs, though. They seem to serve a useful function when done properly, but the noob factor is palapable, as very often WP:RFCBEFORE is ignored, or the RfC is nowhere near neutrally worded and is trying to force a point that some inexperienced editor isn't "winning" on in a prior and short-circuited discussion. I'm not really sure what could be done to curtail that. Perhaps RfCs should require someone to second them before they are listed as RfCs by the bots that do that work. (The concern is that RfCs draw in editors from all over the project, and are thus expensive of editorial time and attention more broadly that just resolving matters more locally on the pertinent talk page with a regular discussion among the editors most interested. But they couldn't be done away with entirely, because they are a site-wide safety value, a check-and-balance against WP:OWN / WP:CONLEVEL problems.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've heard that RFCs used to require a 'second', but I'm not sure that's true and I haven't looked. Generally, I find that when the question is obviously biased, the community manages to handle it perfectly well anyway. Perhaps, when the need is to tell the POV pusher that the answer is really, truly, absolutely, unquestionably no!, then there's an argument to be made about the biased question being more effective. If you get to ask: "Shall we do it my way, which will result in rainbows, butterflies, peace, and love, or shall we do it the bad, wrong, horrible way that causes poverty, war, and oppression?" and people reject your proposal anyway, then maybe you'll finally get the message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't begun many RFCs this year, as the content disputes I was involved with in my area of interests over nearly 19 years, have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was surprised to see that I am one of the top editors for starting RfCs.
- I always try to phrase RfCs simply and unbiased. Perhaps it would be helpful to review RfCs so ensure they are properly worded.
- RfCs are useful for articles that a small number of editors dominate since it brings in a wider range for a second look. But they are not very useful if the issues are complex, because most respondents,in my opinion, are not willing to spend much time. TFD (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- A little while ago, an editor (NatGertler, might that have been you?) said that getting a larger quantity of editors responding to a question has to be balanced with getting comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. RFCs that require either specific prior knowledge or spending more than a few minutes reading will not appeal to most potential respondents. We have plenty of editors who are qualified to opine about whether A or B is a preferable opinion (e.g., this image at the top of the page or not?). We do not have plenty of editors who are qualified to answer questions that require specialized knowledge. If we can get an RFC dominated by the small number of people who know what they're talking about, then that might be a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- If it sounds right to you, then it probably was me. If it sounds wrong to anyone, then it probably wasn't. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like the sort of sensible thing you might say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think we need to be extremely careful about how far we take that argument in terms of formulating best practice: down that road lay walled gardens and many of the exact issues that RfC is meant to combat. First off, respondents already have a significant degree of control over aligning the RfCs that they land at with their own interests and capabilities--either by self-selecting from the listings or registering in the appropriate FRS categories. Second, and more germane, often it is precisely the editors without too much stake or pre-existing attachment to an exact issue or sub-field that you want to recruit with RfC. Because the issues resolved by RfC turn much less often on respondents having some hyper-specific understanding of arcane, subject-matter specific knowledge, and much more often on applying policy and previous community consensus on a particular editorial issue. It is extremely, extremely rare that more voices does not improve the dialogue and the synergy of the consensus outcome with broader community best practice. That's the main value of RfC; injecting more voices--and specifically voices less likely to be entrenched by prior dispute, idiosyncratic rules created by small numbers of editors that may not conform to policy or represent best practice, or even their own "expertise". And let's remember that Wikipedia is about as susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect as any work space humanity has ever produced, due to it's open and anonymous nature; often these levels of expertise are self-assessed and the people most convinced of their unassailably superior grasp of the subject matter are exactly the people whose perspectives need to be diluted by a larger pool of perspective, to ease a problematic grip on the article, family of articles, or process in question. When editors arrive and cannot parse the issues because they are so technically complex, that is of course another issue, albeit relatively rare in my experience--again, most issues turn on a reading of policy vis-a-vis summarizing the conclusions of sources, not a comprehensive understanding of the field in question. And in cases where a reasonable determination does hinge on highly field-specific knowledge, there's very little lost by an editor being pinged to a discussion, only for them to determine within a few minutes that it is outside their ability to properly come to grips with, and therefore decline to respond, or else give a bit of very guarded, limited input. As to the concern that "RFCs that require either specific prior knowledge or spending more than a few minutes reading will not appeal to most potential respondents.": a) I'm not at all convinced that is true, and b) if someone is not willing to spend more than a few minutes reading in order to catch up on the context and nuances of any RfC, they are not the ones you want responding in any event. SnowRise let's rap 13:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think it depends on the subject. Editors don't need to spend time reading sources to vote in a "Which image is better?" RFC, and those tend to attract a higher than average number of participants. Editors tend to self-select out of questions that require specific background knowledge or significant extra work, and those tend to attract a lower number of participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- If it sounds right to you, then it probably was me. If it sounds wrong to anyone, then it probably wasn't. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- A little while ago, an editor (NatGertler, might that have been you?) said that getting a larger quantity of editors responding to a question has to be balanced with getting comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. RFCs that require either specific prior knowledge or spending more than a few minutes reading will not appeal to most potential respondents. We have plenty of editors who are qualified to opine about whether A or B is a preferable opinion (e.g., this image at the top of the page or not?). We do not have plenty of editors who are qualified to answer questions that require specialized knowledge. If we can get an RFC dominated by the small number of people who know what they're talking about, then that might be a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)