Wikipedia:Requests for comment

For Request for checkuser, see WP:SPI.

For Redirects for creation, see WP:AFC/R.

For automatic linking of RFC expressions, see WP:RFCAUTO.

---

Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

A list of all current RFCs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (WP:RFC/A).

Before requesting comment

• If your RFC pertains to a Wikipedia user, see Request comment on users. For everything else, see Request comment through talk pages. But first:
• Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved.
• If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
• If the issue is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page.
• If you want general help in improving an article, such as to Featured status, then list it at Peer review.

Suggestions for responding

All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment.

• Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.
• RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.
• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
• 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 or style page.

Request comment through talk pages

Issues by topic area (View all)
Article topics (View all)
Biographies	(watch)	{{rfc|bio}}
Economy, trade, and companies	(watch)	{{rfc|econ}}
History and geography	(watch)	{{rfc|hist}}
Language and linguistics	(watch)	{{rfc|lang}}
Maths, science, and technology	(watch)	{{rfc|sci}}
Media, the arts, and architecture	(watch)	{{rfc|media}}
Politics, government, and law	(watch)	{{rfc|pol}}
Religion and philosophy	(watch)	{{rfc|reli}}
Society, sports, and culture	(watch)	{{rfc|soc}}
Project-wide topics (View all)
Wikipedia style and naming	(watch)	{{rfc|style}}
Wikipedia policies and guidelines	(watch)	{{rfc|policy}}
WikiProjects and collaborations	(watch)	{{rfc|proj}}
Wikipedia technical issues and templates	(watch)	{{rfc|tech}}
Wikipedia proposals	(watch)	{{rfc|prop}}
Unsorted
Unsorted RfCs	(watch)	{{rfc}}

1. Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral.
2. Place one of the templates shown in the table on the right at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows: {{rfctag|category}} where "category" is the category abbreviation listed on the right. If you spell this category abbreviation incorrectly, use one that doesn't exist, or you leave it blank, then it will be added to the "Unsorted" list. Do not use subst:

   Requests for comment can be in multiple categories through the addition of parameters; e.g. {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, {{rfctag|xxx|yyy|zzz}}, etc.

3. Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Be sure to sign the statement with ~~~~
4. Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest, so be patient.

Or you can add it manually; see below.

Example use of Rfctag

Below is an example of how a completed RFC template in the "xxx" category and associated section heading might appear in a discussion page edit box before saving.

==RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant==

{{rfctag|xxx}}

Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article? ~~~~

Note: Keep in mind, of course, that "xxx" is not an actual RFC abbreviation.

The bot will place all of the text before the signature line (which can be ~~~~ (sign with your name) or ~~~~~ (only the date)) onto the RfC page. If the description is more than a couple of sentences long, you might choose to provide a very brief summary, sign it (so the bot will list only that summary), and then continue with longer comments afterwards (which you should also sign with your name, although they will not be placed on the centralized RfC pages).

If you are an involved editor and you suspect that your words may be construed as non-neutral by the other parties, it may be prudent to set up the request such that you request for a neutral statement to be made then your own view is presented.

If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that's closest, or inquire on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

Adding an article RfC manually

To bypass the bot, go to the relevant subject page for your RfC, such as biographies or politics (see the list above). On the page, go to the section called "Manually added entries," click on "add a discussion," and add your neutrally worded request. Link to the section of the article-talk page in which the RfC discussion will take place.

If you choose this option, please remember to remove the RfC request from the list when the conversation is finished.

Request comment on users

User-related issues
Further instructions are on each page
User conduct	(watch)	(add entry)
User names	(watch)	(add entry)

To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.

To report spam, page blanking, and other blatant vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.

A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.

• Disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, follow a different process.
• For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.
• Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) 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 may 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.
• Users who are the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page. This may be done with the template {{subst:ConductDiscussion}}. {{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RfC}} may be used for the closing of the RfC.
• RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.
• An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.
• An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.

Ending RfCs

RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.

Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page.

A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor.

Foundations of the Spanish kingdoms

A new user, Foneio, created an article called Foundations of the Spanish kingdoms. All of the information is contained in the History of Spain article, and to a much higher editorial standard. Andyjsmith blanked the page and make a redirect to the History of Spain article. Orangemike then changed the redirect to a specific section of the History of Spain article. Andyjsmith left a note on Foneio's talk page explaining why the article had been blanked and redirected. Foneio has not replied to this message and reinstated all of the blanked content. I have blanked it again and reinstated the redirect. It's dawned on me that I ought to seek a wider consensus. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See also

• Archives of user conduct disputes
• Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, lists subpages of this page
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All – a listing of all current RFCs.
• Wikipedia:Requests for expansion when you want help expanding an article instead of help resolving a dispute (inactive)