Wikipedia:Requests for comment

For general comments and feedback, use Wikipedia:Village pump, and choose the proper subsection.

Ultimately, the content of Wikipedia is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Wikipedia prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.

It will help the RFC process if everyone who lists something on this page tries to help out at least one other page listed here.

Overview

When to use an article RfC

RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.

Before adding an entry here:

• Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
• Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

User-conduct RfC

To read the current user-conduct RfCs, go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Old RfCs are kept in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive. If you intend to file an RfC, please read the following carefully before doing so.

• For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
• Although not formally required before proceeding to arbitration, an RfC may be the first step toward it, and arbitration can bring punitive action against an editor. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly.
• A user RfC is a part of the dispute resolution process. It isn't paperwork to be filled out simply so that those who filed it can move on to arbitration. If you file an RfC, try to resolve the dispute so that there's no need for arbitration. Better still, try to resolve the dispute before it reaches the RfC stage.

Alternatives to RfC

• If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.
• If you are in deadlock with just one other user, consider getting a third opinion.
• For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. The goal is to nip potential problems in the bud.
• To request votes instead of comments, consider a listing on Wikipedia:Current Surveys.
• If you want help in getting an article up to Featured status, then list it at Peer review. Note that Peer review is not for listing content disputes.

How to use RfC

• To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
• Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
• On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

Responding to RfCs

• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
• Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
• If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies.

List

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

Article content disputes

List links to talk pages where participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article, on one of the subpages listed below. Discussions with no recent comments may have dried up, and will be removed.

1. Do not put any issues on this page.
2. Link to the Talk page.
3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.

All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you think the current topic areas are confusing or insufficient (or too broad or too narrow), please discuss this at the RFC talk page. If you believe an issue to be miscategorized, please move it to the appropriate section. If you're not sure which place an issue belongs, you can put it in two places if you want, but please don't crosspost further than that.

Issues by topic area
Economy and trade	(watch)	(add entry)
History and geography	(watch)	(add entry)
Language and linguistics	(watch)	(add entry)
Media, art and literature	(watch)	(add entry)
Philosophy	(watch)	(add entry)
Politics	(watch)	(add entry)
Religion	(watch)	(add entry)
Maths, natural science, and technology	(watch)	(add entry)
Society, law and sex	(watch)	(add entry)
If NONE of the above apply	(watch)	(add entry)
General convention and policy issues
Wikipedia style, layout and consistency	(watch)	(add entry)
WikiProjects	(watch)	(add entry)
Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals	(watch)	(add entry)

User conduct and naming

User conduct and misuse of admin privileges	(watch)	(add entry)
Offensive or confusing user names	(watch)	(add entry)