Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

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.

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.

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.
There was an RFC a long time ago, but we're doing something different now. Do we have to hold a second RFC to officially over-rule the old RFC?: No. Consensus can change, and an RFC is not required to prove that the community's consensus has changed. However, even though having another RFC is technically optional, it might still be a good idea, especially if there is a current dispute.
How many RFCs are there?: As of 2024, there are usually about two RFCs started each day. Before 2021, there were about three new RFCs each day.
How many people comment in RFCs?: The number of respondents varies depending on the subject area and the amount of effort needed to answer the question (e.g., higher for popular articles, lower for highly technical questions). It's not unusual to see about five to 20 people participate in a discussion, with a possible range from zero responses to (rarely) several hundred.

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 .

New shortcut

I just saw a new shortcut, WP:BADRFC, which points to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. What do you all think about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two shortcuts for the same thing are one too many. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be removed. Instead of explaining why an RfC is "bad", editors will just misuse the shortcut to shut down RfCs they don't like. Some1 (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, could you take "WP:GOODRFC" there too? Some1 (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also new, and also barely used, and also misleading (e.g., an RFC question that is brief and neutral, but also tendentious). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I've removed them both [1] from this page. I guess WP:RFD is the next stop to have those two shortcuts deleted... Some1 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1#March 1, towards the top of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

isn’t it said that a non neutral statement can still be debated as an rfc?

the community is usually smart enough to point it out in discussion/polling and allow an rfc to continue. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the first question in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:GOODRFC" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:GOODRFC has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 1 § Wikipedia:GOODRFC until a consensus is reached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to get some opinion on the reliability and notability of an article, is this the place?

Talk:North End (café) has discussion listed, essentially a disagreement over if the sources are reliable/notable or not. Greatder (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean is this talk page the place to get that opinion, then no. This talk page is primarily for discussing the information page WP:Requests for comment and additionally for discussing the RfC process and actual RfCs.

The main place to get the opinion in question is the article talk page that you reference. If you believe a proper consensus cannot be reached there without inviting comment from a broader audience, then creating an RfC could be the way to get additional opinion (it would still be on that article talk page, just with more participation). WP:Requests for comment tells you how (and whether) to create an RfC.

But I looked at that discussion, and I really don't see a dispute. I realize there is edit history that you might consider part of the conversation, but it is not. Talk page discussion is all that matters. I don't see anyone maintaining on the talk page that sources are unreliable and the article subject is non-notable. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Greatder: There are three WikiProject banners at the top of Talk:North End (café). You could try leaving a neutrally-worded message at one or more of the WikiProject talk pages; templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The appeal procedure at AN is nowhere to be seen

I'm not sure if it's by design, but I see a little issue with this page. It describes what you should do if an RfC outcome is obvious, that formal closure is generally unnecessary and that one should agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance - but what about the rare cases when it is not and the formal closure isn't something that you believe the discussion was? Closure reviews and all that? I know it's in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE but still Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also at the end of the instructions at Wikipedia:Closure requests.

This has been discussed in the past, e.g., Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 17#RfC close reviews, but mostly people either figure it out, or occasionally they ask and someone points them in the right direction. I don't think we get even one such question every other year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership, NPOV, and questionable sources

I understand that religion is a passionate topic. I am having editorial problems on Historicity of Jesus. The article is not presented in a NPOV. Additionally, attempts at helping the article are immediately attacked. Not only do the possessive editors bully editors, they have self-authored a FAQ page that tells everyone they are right. The most important take away is that the article relies on a cherry-picked segment of published sources; namely biblical scholars. These publications are rife with Christian authors who declare that they are right and that all other theories are wrong. These sources are being used, as if to say, "The issue is closed. It has been decided. And no other theory can be presented." Recently, they have started posting comments on my talk page (Talk) designed to intimidate me. Now, again, I know religion is a passionate subject, in fact, I posted a similar request for help on the tea house. I got one response that basically said, "walk away." I don't think wikipedia is supposed to be left to those who don't walk away. I am unsure how to begin a RfC or if I should. StarHOG (Talk) 23:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC on the general question won't be useful. Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Article overhaul needed suggests to me that if the article's balance will change, it will not happen as a result of your efforts. But if you wanted to have another go at it, I suggest that you spend less time saying you believe the article is non-neutral and more time finding gold-plated scholarly sources, such as books published by a university press that are directly and mainly on that subject (and not, e.g., books primarily about why atheism is best that happen to have a few pages on historical questions). If you find such sources, you might be able to have a useful discussion (RFC or otherwise) along the lines of "Shall we include the following paragraph in the body of the article, cited to these two gold-plated reliable sources?" And once (i.e., if) the balance of the body shifts, you could later propose adjustments to the lead in a WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a bit overwhelming to walk into a wall of criticism like this. If I may, I'm going to ask you to entertain that editors are judging the situation honestly, not pathologically or small-mindedly, and trying to give you honest feedback, if frustrated feedback. Unfortunately, to me, this really is a situation where I am going to tell someone "walk away" too—there's not much one can do beyond that but wait for the other to acquire the lay of the land for themselves. I stress that to me the lens of personal belief or disbelief doesn't even think to present itself here—we're just using the tools of history, and intentionally so. Remsense ‥ 论 01:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]