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 .

Text re: a requirement for an actionable result

In several recent RfCs, I've editors respond along the lines of "Bad RfC, there is no actionable result." My own opinion is that it is sometimes appropriate to have an RfC that seeks consensus about something that is not immediately actionable (e.g., the goal might be to assess consensus prior to writing an actionable item or to have a consensus to point to in subsequent Talk discussions). But either way — whether the community's consensus is that RfCs always be framed around an actionable result or is instead that it can be acceptable to have an RfC without an actionable result — I think it would be helpful to add text to WP:RFC saying so. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an RFC is needed to collect information for future actions. You hardly want to spend time preparing a complex series of updates to change X to Y, only to have people say "Nah, you should've done it the other way around, and change Y to X". Then you've wasted all that time and get to do it all over.

Also, what some people mean by "no actionable result" is "did not mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format"" – as if RFC were merely a version of Wikipedia:Edit requests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently used that language in a close here, but I don't think I implied that RfCs need to have actionable outcomes?—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you implied anything like that, either.

Rather than singling out any one person, maybe look at these search results (14 at the moment, including this discussion). Some are false positives, some look defensible, some are just making up non-existent rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that list.

I don't see anything there that doesn't attempt an actionable result; the real complaint just seems to be that the RfC doesn't ask a specific enough question that the answer would end all controversy. And I don't think that's a problem. Sometimes you have to get the contours of an answer before you work on the specifics. In fact, that is usually the only way to get a clear consensus.

RfCs need to seek an actionable result, but there is no existing problem with people requesting comments that wouldn't inform some action, so there's no need to document that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs don't need to seek an actionable result. They can just be requests for new ideas or more opinions, without any kind of agenda.—S Marshall T/C 08:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we're (clarification: Bryan Henderson and I) interpreting "actionable result" in different ways. To me, there's a difference between "inform[ing] some action" and specifying an action to take. It's hard for me to imagine an RfC that wouldn't serve to inform, but it's easy for me to find examples of RfCs that don't specify an action to take, and I see some editors rejecting the entire RfC when they encounter the latter. For example, a current RfC + comment that contributed to my initial query has the question "Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights?" and the comment is (in part) "Procedural oppose ... this RfC is not conducive to an actionable consensus summary" (and the same editor said similar things in the discussion, such as "the question needs to be refined to lead to actionable consensus" and "an RfC [needs] to lead to a reasonable and actionable result"). This example didn't come up in WhatamIdoing's search, since the complainant used the phrase "Procedural oppose" instead of "Bad RfC." FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a law of Wikipedia that any text preceded by the words "Procedural oppose" is a flagrant WP:NOTBURO infringement that all closers should disregard. This is henceforth to be known as S Marshall's third law.—S Marshall T/C 14:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns about that RFC, and the series of (so far) four RFCs it is part of. I suspect that the end result will be "I get to declare all sources with POVs I disagree with to be intrinsically unreliable. You may have the highest ideal of a MEDRS source, but I have an RFC saying that 'pathologizing' trans people is bad, and I say your ideal source is pathologizing, so it's unreliable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah… the “actionable” part of these related RFC’s is whether certain view points (and thus the sources that might support such views) can be excluded or not. Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The compilation of a list of ideas and opinions is an action. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, User:FactOrOpinion. To me, actionable result means a result on which action can be taken. An example of an RfC that does not seek an actionable result is one that asks for new ideas or opinions just for curiosity, where those ideas or opinions are not expected to be useful for any edit. That is a waste of commenters' time and should not be an RfC. Where the requester expects to elicit ideas that can be used in formulating an edit, the requester is seeking an actionable result.

Another example of an RfC that does not seek (or at least will not generate) an actionable result is where the question is so ambiguous that it won't be possible to tell what the responses mean. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a mistake for someone to open an RfC out of curiosity. My sense, though, is that some editors think "elicit[ing] ideas that can be used in formulating an edit" is not an actionable result. Also, some productive RfCs aren't about formulating an edit; for example, the goal of the RfC that I mentioned above seems to be: reducing the amount of time/energy taken up in repetitive talk page debates about a recurrent issue. The results of such RfCs sometimes appear in a talk page FAQ or a change in an RSP listing. Thinking about the various goals that someone might have in opening a productive RfC makes me wonder if it would actually be helpful to incorporate that into WP:RFC; that is, in addition to specifying a brief question, briefly specify the goal. I know that I've sometimes wondered what the purpose of a given RfC is, and would find it helpful if people always made that explicit. Often, the goal will be something like "make edit XYZ," but sometimes it will be something else. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we can think of a short goal, we could use it as an example in the box on the side. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which box you're thinking of — the one that has examples of good and bad questions? Re: a short goal, is "reduce the time/energy taken up by repetitive debates" short enough? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that box. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

briefly specify the goal I like it. Maybe sometimes people don't see a prospective result as actionable because they don't know what kind of action the requester is contemplating. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]