Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 21 June 2020 (→‎Draft RFC question about [subject]: oops). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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

Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Draft RFC open

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft). User:SmokeyJoe, how would your review process handle something like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That’s a particularly professional looking RfC. It’s on its own page, with a talk page for meta comments, and activity there, and there is a draft period before it is launched. That is ideal, more than should be realistically expected from a garden variety RfC.
In my review process, “new RfC patrol”, I would give it a tick. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what outcome they're trying to achieve, so I'm not sure what (if anything) could be improved. But what would you recommend in terms of process? Draft it, post a note here/somewhere, wait a while for you to review it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glacial, isn’t it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, a draft RfC must have a minimum 24 hours review period, and a maximum of 7 days.
Commenting on an RfC on a question I am completely unconnected to to very hard work. However, I think commenting on the question would be pretty easy. Mostly the answer would be “yes”. Sometimes “this question doesn’t make sense”. A non-yes answer should be phrased as a suggestion for improvement. An RfC in draft phase for over a week, let alone months, is a failure that should be archived. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it'd be auto-approved if nobody objects within 7 days. A review could reduce the number of RFCs that have "Support" and "Oppose" votes, only the supporters and opposers have the same views. It might also help us head off some of the attempts to copyedit pages by voting for a half-dozen slightly different options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, what do you think about an experiment in which this page is the "noticeboard" for optional pre-RFC reviews? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds like a good experiment. This shows that drafting is a failure, a fair bit of effort went into it, and for nothing. I think it supports the 1 week time frame for auto-approval, maybe extendable to a second week, but if the discussion-proper is not open by then, then it is a quagmire or abandoned. My thoughts have not been that this question-review period is about "heading off" something, but just that quality of the question correlates with quality of the discussion. Also, that consensus decision-making involves compromise often involving the phrasing of the question.
This page, WT:RfC, as the noticeboard? You mean proposed RfCs will be listed as a thread on this page, with discussion on the question to be put on the article talk page? I think that sounds good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WT:RFC as the noticeboard. I've made a section for it below, and I've linked to it in WP:RFC and at WP:VPP and WP:AN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is an RFC best?

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

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

Whisperjanes, Shouldn’t there be some conversation on the talk page so that these editors, across time, can make themselves aware? Even a summary of the issue you have observed could help. Additionally an Editnotice could bring awareness to editors of different opinions that only encounter each other at a distance. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philoserf: Yes, I don't mind starting a conversation. I'll start with that and leave some sort of message about there being 2 different bands, possible COI editing, and edit wars. I've never used an editnotice before. Would you have any suggestions in this case? - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whisperjanes, I am certain you have seen them. They are described here wikipedia:Editnotice. —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that's what they're called, or that you can request to have them added to a page. Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Whisperjanes, have you looked into whether it's possible to write an article about the "other" band with this name? If you can, you could WP:MOVE the pages so that you end up with Sly, Slick, and Wicked (Los Angeles band) and Sly, Slick, and Wicked (Cleveland band), and have both articles point at each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I looked into it before I thought about doing an RfC, but it's hard to find online reliable sources for bands from the 70s with the same name. I personally couldn't find enough reliable sources for the LA band (there are enough for the Cleveland band, though, which was what the article was originally written about). So I don't have enough sources to create a separate article for the LA band myself. I also mentioned creating a separate article on the talk page, but I still haven't gotten a reply. It seems the unsourced edit warring is going on again, though, so I might just revert the article to a previous version and let people discuss it on the talk page. Especially since it's getting close to a month that this (new batch of edit warring) has been going on now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I know this will seem silly, Whisperjanes, but I think that writing that second article, even if it proves to be non-notable and gets deleted, is an effective path out of this mess. People are going to quit writing "is a group of out Los Angeles" when the page title says "Cleveland band" in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing: I think that solution works well (not silly at all). Thanks for your help! - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits to start?

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

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

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

―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, seems fine to me. The important thing is that the initial statement is signed to cut off the part transcluded by the bot. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily signed, just in possession of a valid timestamp such as would be produced by WP:5TILDES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone zealously checking to make sure that you used a separate edit? If not, then I propose that we don't actually have a problem here, and that this set of directions is more likely to result in editors, at least 98% of whom have less experience with RFCs than Mandruss, doing the right thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. We are not talking about a massive undertaking to get the guidance in line with practice. If there is no reason to do two edits, there is no reason for the guidance to suggest two edits. I don't need to show an actual problem beyond the fact that the guidance is currently incorrect, which is itself a problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that nobody's enforcing this unnecessary rule is relevant. As it stands, some people are going to find it confusing and think there must be some complexity they don't understand that makes it matter if it's one edit or two. I like clarity. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that it's actually clearer. Most people are looking for a list of simple steps to take. "Write this; now write that" is "clarity". Most people are not trying to find subtle hints about what might or might not happen if they write "this" and "that" in the same revision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it annoying when it is hard to find out who wrote the rationale. Advice to sign a brief header sounds good. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand from the above and reading Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief; task 33 in Legobot responds to new text containing the {{rfc}} template. If there is any, it then searches forward for the first timestamp. It then copies that much text to the noticeboard. If somebody starts their RFC with one long post including lots of detail, then the bot will just copy it all. A long statement will make the list harder to read seems quite clear. So, maybe just add a little re-iteration after If you have lots to say ... edit the page again ...? Post a short summary (which the bot will copy) and then go back and add any further detail (which the bot will not copy). Also split Statement should be neutral and brief into two parts — Statement should be brief and Statement should be neutral.  — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it scans for the first valid timestamp. But that does not mean that the first timestamp needs to terminate a post. You can make a post that contains two timestamps, one after the brief statement and one at the very end - for example, Talk:Billie Eilish#Infobox image RfC 3. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it goes against instinct. A talk post ends with a sig. Putting a sig (or just a timestamp) in the middle of a post somehow confounds feng shui. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's hard to say how most editors view posting on a Wikipedia talk page. You yourself use two models in the same paragraph. First, a post is delineated by a sig. In the next sentence, it's delineated by pressing the "Publish changes" button. I agree it goes against instinct to write two sigs and press "Publish changes" once, because formal talk systems just have a Post button. But I also think editors of talk pages, especially ones that Legobot reads, need to get used to the idea that all that matters is the resulting text, and saying to write a sig/timestamp and then keep typing makes that more clear than saying to edit twice. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Instructions that "go against instinct" are not models of clarity. When we need editors to go against their instincts, we need to either re-word the directions to avoid that (which is what we did here: we are counting on their "instinct" to sign each comment to get the two timestamps that this needs) or we need tell them that this process will go against their instincts and that they're going to need to write something, sign it, write something else, and sign it again (probably with an example, too). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC or AfD?

I wonder if an AfC is appropriate for the article Neo-Futurism? In Talk:Neo-futurism there is an extensive discussion on deleting the article. But no one nominated it yet. Perhaps a RfC should be tried before AfD? --Postconfused (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your reply. What I think is not relevant. I am asking what is the right thing to do. in the presert article is stated "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project". so what is your advise? --Postconfused (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt about an RfC, or an AfD, do nothing. Both require an editor who at least thinks they are sure about what they are doing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I didnt' ask what I should do, but what is the right thing to do. I am not going to propose either an AfD or a RfC. I am asking how experienced editors would manage the discussion about that article. --Postconfused (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The more specific conflict resolution systems are preferred over RfC, so AfD would be more appropriate than RfC as a way to get consensus on whether this article should be deleted. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Postconfused, the right thing for you to do yourself can be different from the right thing to be done. In this case, if you personally do not want to see the article deleted, then you personally should not send it to WP:AFD. If you personally do want the article deleted, then you should follow the steps at WP:BEFORE and decide how likely it is that the article would actually get deleted. Remember that WP:Deletion is not cleanup, so the current state of the article is unimportant.
Also, before you do any of that, you should probably look at the dates in those comments. Some of them are from 2014. Their complaints may not be relevant any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing Thanks for your reply. Personally, I am not a deletionist. The article presents several fictious references. for instance, the definition itself of neofuturism is based on a reference from a another wiki https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Neo-futurism (ref 2]; reference 3 is not a reliable source, ref. 4 is a ted tak where there are no references to neo futurism, same for references from 5 to 14. is this article based on original research [WP:OR]? I was unable to verify ref 16, in ref. 17 quotation is correct. Then, we have the definition provided by a unknown manifesto and an author deleted by wikipedia. Reference 28 does not provide any source to confirm that Cohen gave any defintion of neofuturism, reference 29 is the url of a library (!?). I wasnt able to verify with google book the quotation in ref. 30. In addition the author mentioned in references 30, 31 wrote about futurism (eg Marinetti) in the 30s, but never mentioned neo-futurism. Actually, it was known for brutalist architecture. The question is: what can be saved and properly referred in this article? --Postconfused (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Postconfused, have you read the actual WP:Editing policy? It might give you some clues. Beyond that general advice, the most important thing is to find and read a couple of good sources, and then do whatever you think is best. Don't count on other editors being interested enough to drop what they're doing and start work on this instead. WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the article, I think it passes WP:NEOLOGISM, it is a recognized neologism, and it has a place. However, as a time-specific experimental fashion in architecture, I don't think it has great depth of potential for growth, or a body of interested adherents. I think no process should be employed, beyond incremental improvements. I don't think the taggery helps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing and SmokeyJoe: Thanks to both of you for the detailed explanation. Unfortunately, I feel uncomfortable to edit this article as design/architecture is not my field. I prefer writing about what I have studied/researched. But I am good at identifying fake references as I must read several student essays every term. One of these papers mentioned neofuturism but I wasn't able to find scholar pubblications to verify the existance of such a movement. Only this article neo-futurism seemed a reliable source but when I verified the references in the article I realised they were fake. Overall, interesting example of how a factoid can be discussed and eventually accepted. Postconfused (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postconfused. You "verified the references in the article I realised they were fake"? That's pretty serious. I looked at some of the references and thought they were OK, but I wasn't in a very critical mood. Can you elaborate on "fake"? We shold take this to the article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I put "neo-futurism" architecture into books.google.com and scholar.google.com, I find enough sources to be certain that it's a notable subject. Consider, e.g., doi:10.1080/10464883.1992.10734506: 'There are two distinct currents in this critique: "postmodern historicism" and "neofuturism." The former has reverted to the revival of architecture of the past to cloak today's technologically complex buildings with historical styles. The latter derives its imagery from the expressionistic unraveling of form to suggest the collapse of scientific and cultural meaning. Both trends represent cynical views toward the present: postmodernism escapes to the past, and deconstruction escapes toward the future.' WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing Thank you for your reply, in my professional experience I learnt that simply pointing your browser to Google Scholar won't help receive useful search results. For instance, the source you mentioned doi:10.1080/10464883.1992.10734506 received 13 views (including mine and yours) from 2012 (online version) and no citations from 1992 (printed version). In addition, what does "the collapse of scientific and cultural meaning" and "cynical views" mean? I did not find any scholarly book on history of design or architecture giving a definition of neo-futurism. I find very peculiar also the absence of neofuturism in textbooks considering the numbe of archi-stars 'dropped' in the neo-futurism article. Another oddity, I didn’t find any exhibitions or conferences on neo-futurism. The only event is the ICNFNFA [the link to the event is blacklisted by wikipedia and I cannot post it] organized by the World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, which is defined by Wikipedia as a "a predatory publisher of open access academic journals" and "accused of arranging predatory conferences, in order to artificially boost the academic credentials of presenters and paper submitters". But, once again, I am not an expert in this field, I d not have any experience in architecture and arts and I might miss some relevant materials or sources. Postconfused (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe There is a significant discussion in the talk page about sources. Bricology provided a good assessment. For what I was able to verify, the majority of the sources are fictitious entries. Some editors are in good faith and might use unreliable sources, but in this article, there is a systematic use of unreliable sources to justify claims that are unverifiable. In my view, references from 1 to 20 do not pass WP:RS. In addition, other sources do not directly support the information presented in the article WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, eg ref. 29 or 30. Last but not least, the section on "The Neo-Futuristic City Manifesto" lacks of credibility and good faith. The article of the author was deleted and this [1] and [2] seemd spamming or promotional activity. But once again, I am not an experienced editor, I do rely on your and WhatamIdoing's experience in managing those cases. Indeed, what is your view? --Postconfused (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's rules do not assume that an article published in a mid-tier niche academic journal is fake merely because the individual article has not been cited or read very much.
  • Source #5 is certainly reliable for statements of fact. The magazine has been discussed several times and always accepted; some of the others may not be. We do sometimes find that people spam their own firm's websites into articles as "citations", for example. Wikipedia does not require scholarly sources for most subjects, including this one. You may request help evaluating each individual source (separately) at WP:RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please take this discussion somewhere else? It has nothing to do with the Wikipedia:Requests for comment page. I suggest the Neo-Futurism talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple threads

An interesting situation has cropped up over at Death of George Floyd there are multiple threads all discussing his criminal record, so I launched an RFC to try and have it all in one thread. Now a number of users are still commenting in other (and even launching new) threads. So my question is, does an RFC have to take into account of opinions not expressed in it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. More to the point, determining WP:Consensus (the point of an RFC, right?) takes into account all the information known to the editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But when someone closes the RfC discussion, that person will summarize that discussion. Not all opinions on the topic; just that discussion. And the closing of an RfC discussion carries a lot more weight in arbitrating what is the consensus of all editors on the topic than a bunch of unclosed, nonRfc discussions. So it behooves people who care about the topic to contribute to the RfC discussion, even if they also contribute to other discussions.
This is the same as the common case where someone starts a new RfC discussion to resolve a dispute that arose in a single, huge existing non-RfC discussion. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get help with writing your RFC question

During June 2020, we are going to try an experiment to see whether editors want and benefit from help with writing RFC questions. This is optional. If you want help, here's what to do:

  1. Start a ===New subsection=== inside this discussion thread. Please give us:
    • a link to the article or other related page,
    • a suggested question (don't include the {{RFC}} tag, but do tell us if you know which categories you think are appropriate),
    • a short explanation of why you want to have an RFC, and
    • optionally, a note about why you're asking for help (e.g., it's your first RFC, particularly contentious subject, just wanted to try out the new review process, your last RFC didn't go as well as you had hoped, etc.).
  2. Wait for a response. We're hoping that most proposed RFCs will get a response within a couple of days.

Thanks for trying out our experiment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RFC question about [subject]

(Put your question here)

Oops, I posted in a separate section below :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Place to look up historical RfCs

Is there a log or other central place where I can look up historical RfCs? If so, where is it?—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can search the RFC archive via a search box at the bottom of the main article Wikipedia:Requests for comment — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm afraid I've been unclear. Let's say, for example, that I want to close an RfC about a drug. Before I do, I want to check the previous consensuses about drugs, in case there have been decisions that ought to inform my close. Where can I look at them?—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall: Ah, I'm not aware of any category-based filter, the best thing to do would probably be to use wikipedia's default search bar with deepcat or something. (also, if you actually are interested in closing a drug-related (especially drug pric(e|ing)-related) RfC, my best advice is to not). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was a major participant in that Arbcom case, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.  :) But it was the example that sprang to mind. Am I the only person who would benefit from a centralised log of RfC closes by date and subject?—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had cause to look this up at one point, and I wasn't able to find anything either. The best I could do was a manual review of Legobot's edit summaries on the subpages of WP:RFC, so for drugs I would go here. That works as a list of pages where an RfC occurred within roughly the last 10 years (before which the edit summaries are less informative). I suppose the biggest missing piece would be something that takes a list of pages and determines which of them are in Category:Drugs, or some other arbitrary category. Regardless, a centralised log would definitely be helpful. Perhaps ask at VPT? Sunrise (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been any log or record. Because we remove the RFC template (rather than switching it off or swapping it), and many RFCs don't say "RFC" in the section heading, there is no way to find them all. If it was very important, you could reconstruct some of this by going through the history of the RFC listing pages or a more specific page such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. Early RFCs are all listed in the history of WP:RFC (example).
Is there a reason why you would want to find only RFCs, and not all the relevant conversations? RFCs don't necessarily represent the best discussion on any given subject, and WP:Consensus can change after an RFC. RFC outcomes are no more meant to be enshrined as the One True™ Community View forever than any other single discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The clearest example I can produce is this one. I'm now wondering whether you feel I was wrong.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong to take notice of the previous RFC? When you are attempting to determine the community's view at one point in time, I think it is good to consider whatever you happen to know about recent discussions on the same or very similar subjects. If you had happened to know about a large RFC on a similar subject that closed just the month before (as in this case; e.g., you knew about the previous RFC because it was linked in the current discussion, or because you happened to remember it), that intentionally ignoring that recent discussion would be inappropriate. I do not think that we should impose a duty upon RFC closers to search for such prior discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I've noticed a trend to try to make RfC questions very simple and clear. A 2020 RfC usually opens with a short, scrupulously neutrally-worded, question stripped of all background, history and context. The expectation is that an uninvolved RfC closer will Resolve The Question. When I close, personally, I want to know the background and the context, and I always try to dig it up, but I've got no way to be sure I've fully grokked it when I post that closing statement.
I absolutely agree with you that consensus can change, and that if consensus has changed, then an RfC is a good way to confirm that. But I also think that there are other times when consensus does exist, and hasn't changed, but there are people active in the topic area who don't like or agree with the consensus. Sometimes, those people are a bit, to coin a phrase, RfC-happy (keen to start RfCs, keen to force others to do so).
Let's imagine a hypothetical RfC where the question was: Should we include the price of drug X based on source Y? and it's followed by a bunch of "supports" and "opposes" from the usual suspects. It appears on ANRFC and an uninvolved closer, who's never previously touched a medical topic because they've spent five years and thirty thousand edits on Wikipedia making articles about species of beetle, slaps a {{closing}} template on it. (Insert meme featuring Admiral Ackbar here.) Can you think of any RfCs about which that closer ought to be aware? If so, how would she find them?—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a trend to try to make RfC questions very simple and clear - that would be WP:RFCBRIEF. But yes, there is a tendency to open frivolous RfCs, where the opener has clearly not observed WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. My comment above was poorly thought out because I addressed it to WAID who participated in a recent Arbitration about drug prices, and I now see how badly I failed to elucidate my meaning for the benefit of others. I was trying to illustrate how closing an RFC that's just a question without context or reference to other RFCs in the topic area risks subverting pre-existing consensuses that really ought to prevail. My preferred solution would be a searchable database of those consensuses, which closers could choose to examine during the closing process.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a searchable database of RfCs would be an extremely valuable resource, far more valuable than the DRV or MRV logs, for example, as RfCs are of strong forward-looking importance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I've noticed a trend to try to make RfC questions very simple and clear. – This is my fault. We had a spate some years back of very vague questions, and in my zeal to discourage that, the examples were all simple, binary questions, and (because we trend towards rule-following over time), this became The Right Way™, and voting followed close on its heels. I'm sorry. I should have been able to predict this outcome, but I didn't think it through enough. I'm looking for ways to slowly drag the pendulum back towards the middle. We need to achieve brevity (in the initial question) without falling into over-simplifications about either the question or its history.
In the case of your specific example, I assume that the partisans on both sides would provide you with links to anything that might bolster your side and/or scare off any closers with a decent sense of self-preservation. But assuming a normal RFC situation, and in the absence of the database you would like, it might be helpful for WP:RFC to encourage editors to include links to previous discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea.
I think we use RfC as the last step in a chain. Editors mull stuff over on the talk page, but they can't agree, so they have an RfC-formulation discussion in which they reduce The Question to its bare essentials and then ask an uninvolved closer to Resolve The Question. It's actually a pretty good way of Resolving The Question -- and in fact, the best way we as a community have as yet found -- and I don't want to stop editors using it in this way.
But there's an old school way of using RfCs on Wikipedia as well, which I rarely see nowadays. I'll coin a name for it: the Request for Ideas, where editors went early to the community with a seemingly-intractable problem, before the dispute got entrenched and the sides were drawn, and they asked for thoughts rather than votes. Remember those? Nowadays, the old school way is verboten!
Should it be?—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, such community questions should not be “verboten”... but perhaps we do need to explicitly LABEL them differently. Call them “Requests for ideas” or “Request for Input” (RFI) so people understand that they are not “Dispute resolution” discussions. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of anyone discouraging a request for ideas under the RfC label. I've seen people discourage vague open-ended wording of a question in an RfC whose goal is to resolve a dispute, but everyone understands that's not the only use for an RfC. If there are to be two labels, one for dispute resolution, and one for not, "RfC" should go with the latter.
And by the way, closers don't resolve an issue. They summarize the discussion they're closing. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a lot of the RfCs I see, the purpose of the RfC is to bring an end to a deadlock or an intractable dispute, thereby enabling editors to move on. The uninvolved closer announces The Decision: that's the point of closing. Hence, "resolve an issue". Clearly as closer you can't find a decision where none exists, but even with a "no consensus" close, you can sometimes move the discussion quite a long way forwards just with the right choice of words.—S Marshall T/C 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different editors have different ideas about the role (and necessity) of closers. Consider the Wikipedia:Supervote problem: it wouldn't exist if people weren't expecting The Decision to be announced. Perhaps we should rename them to "discussion summarizers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on best formulation

A dispute over an apostrophe with Jenny Jankel and others that begin at Down syndrome has now moved to Tourette syndrome in a similar form, although the circumstances over naming of the two conditions are different. The frequent misuse of RFCs was mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine, and it has been many times discussed that the rush to RFC (particularly malformed) is not helpful in achieving consensus, and that we need to do better in Medicine articles. In the interest of avoiding another round of this and this (replete with edit warring), could regular participants here please advise how to best proceed here? Jenny is already suggesting an RFC, which if malformed, is a dispute likely to move on to the next article that has multiple names. Since this is round two, a broader approach might be better, and regulars here are better at wording RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment&oldid=963783844"