Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:29, 5 May 2023

This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:RFC

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.

Dispute Resolution (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution articles

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

The RfC question isn't neutral!: Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RfC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?: The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.: RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?: As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?: Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?: No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?: Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.

Archives

For why RfC was created, see:
- Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by .

When moving an RFC...

@Redrose64: I'd like to add, maybe to WP:RFCEND, something like, When moving an RFC from one page to another, blank |rfcid= in the {{RFC}} template. Is that correct, and anything else that should be said? Levivich (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cutpaste move of an ongoing RfC doesn't happen very often, roughly once every two or three months. There are a number of circumstances when the |rfcid= parameter must be removed, and a few where removing it is actually harmful. I have considered putting together a section on when this should and should not be done, but it looked like becoming unwieldy and confusing. There is already such a lot on the page that people are applying WP:TLDR, ignoring the whole page and slapping an {{rfc}} tag on the most trivial of discussions when a simple check of WP:RFCBEFORE would tell them not to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help: Talk:Venezuela#RfC

This RfC was opened in January (though possibly/probably? not in the correct manner); could someone either do the correct opening/closing? Thank you, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: What was wrong with it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I think I was supposed to put it in a template, to alert the community, so that "an outsider" could close it? At the moment, it is not oficially closed, and there have been a tendency to edit-war; I would like to see a closure, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a formal closure, list it at WP:CR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks; have done, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I open a RfC?

I have a proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_reword_text_above_the_source-editing_window that looks like it can be better organized with the more structured nature of RfC process. I am quite inexperienced within the area of RfC processes so I am asking for a confirmation here first. Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything especially structured about the RfC process. The only difference between the RfC process and what you're currently doing is that the RfC process invites more people to participate. Do you think you have a problem with not enough input in the existing discussion? Maybe an impasse? If not, I don't think it would be appropriate to do an RfC, which could greatly complicate the discussion with too many participants, while unnecessarily absorbing precious RfC commenter time. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some newer editors have only seen a few RFCs, so they might expect them to be structured like votes, instead of like discussions. This is generally not appropriate, but that style usually works for RFCs that are both large and simpler. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article

I am searching for a editor to help me to improve my article about an artist with comments enabling me to submit it for revision. Thanks in advance. Noobsaiboth (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Noobsaiboth - Several things;

This page is not the correct venue for this sort of request. Wikipedia:Peer review might be a better fit.
The AFC reviewer who declined Draft:Ararat Aleksanyan left comments letting you know what you need to do to submit it for revision. What more information do you need?

Do not respond here. I will copy this conversation to Draft talk:Ararat Aleksanyan. Reply there. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case you do check back here, the draft will soon be deleted as you are not allowed to copy and paste text from sources; you need to write the article in your own words using facts gathered from sources. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs as tools for canvassing

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)[reply]

Karen Hartman

Hello!

I am the subject of this article, Karen Hartman. I appreciate the note that it needs further work! Here with some links to support anyone who wants to help, and thank you in advance!

I was not on Zoobilee Zoo (different Karen Hartman).

Here are some sources for more information about my career as a playwright:

NY Times article about the VOLT festival off-Broadway featuring my work one year ago https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/theater/volt-festival-karen-hartman-59e59.html

Announcement of Guggenheim Fellowship 2019 https://www.gf.org/fellows/karen-hartman/

Susan Smith Blackburn Prize finalist 2023 https://www.blackburnprize.org/home/

Plays published by Concord Theatricals https://www.concordtheatricals.com/search?keyword=karen%20hartman

List of eight Henry Awards for the new musical RATTLESNAKE KATE, including best new play or musical work (I wrote the book, Neyla Pekarek the score) https://www.onstagecolorado.com/henry-awards-2022/

Many more links to play information, press and reviews on my website https://www.karenhartman.org/

Thanks again! I truly appreciate all efforts especially to shine a light on women artists and writers via the Wiki! Warmly Hartman (I prefer to be referred to as Hartman, not Karen) 2603:7000:8103:BAC:B802:5ACC:D175:E39B (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]