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 Alexander Davronov (talk | contribs) at 12:47, 2 April 2021 (Volume problems). 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 page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Signing RFC's

Dunno if I'm in the minority here, but I don't like seeing unsigned RFC's. I like to know exactly who created it. This is important information for judging biases and just having general information about the RFC. Is there any interest in deleting the line or ~~~~~ (just the time and date) from the instructions in our article, so that people are not encouraged to create "anonymous" RFC's with no name? (5 tildes instead of 4 tildes signs just the date) Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the last time this was discussed (3 years ago): Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 15#Signature vs date stamp.
Some people were for changing the instructions to require signing. There was no consensus for or against, and an RfC to establish consensus was discussed. The conclusion was that an RfC was unnecessary, because the problem is small enough that we can accommodate the people who support unsigned RfC statements even if they are in the minority.
Incidentally, we should make sure to separate the concept of signing an RfC statement and posting an RfC anonymously. Signing is formal statement of ownership, like a byline in a newspaper. If you think you need to know who posted an RfC, you look in the page history for that, and if the poster really doesn't want responders to know who he is, he doesn't log into Wikipedia when posting. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae, I wonder whether you'd be interested in running User:Yair rand/UserBlind.js for a while, and seeing whether the results surprise you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing, lol. That would probably really bug me. But interesting to see that there are people that basically have the opposite belief (that every post should be anonymous). –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There may be situations in which one is obviously better than the other. If you're going to summarize a contentious RFC, then there might be significant value in not paying attention to the editors' identities. If you're dealing with two editors who have a history of not getting along, then it's probably better to know that it's those two again. Under ordinary circumstances, I think it should be a matter of personal preference, but when you find that you are agreeing with me just because I'm me, and not because I've written the most convincing statement – well, a little experiment might help you learn if your preference is leading you in directions that you wouldn't naturally go. You can turn it on, read a discussion, make up your mind, and then turn it off and check back to see whether any of the names surprise you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, but in the absence of a change in the instructions, if you think a signature is being left out inappropriately then one option would be to add the {{unsigned}} template. Sunrise (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Legobot handles that badly - the RfC statement needs to have a true signature/timestamp as would be produced by four or five tildes, not one emitted by {{subst:unsigned}} and similar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sunrise, I saw an admin delete an unsigned template from an RFC the other day. Looks like signing RFC's is a sensitive issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to create an RfC for the "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" article

I have a discussion in the talk page of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence article and two editors were against my edit proposals but they didn't had much to say about what I said, each of them made only one short reply on only part of what I said and they didn't replied to my reply to them. My sources and my arguments clearly shows that the "scientific controversy" part just doesn't make sense but according to what was told to me it still isn't considered a consensus despite the fact that nobody replied to me for several months.

Someone told me to go for RfC but I don't understand exactly what it is and how I should make it. should I just write an RfC like it was shown in the example here, and than post it in the talk page of the article and wait for someone else to respond to me?. What exactly will happen next?. Will someone else just come and decide what to do or there will be a discussion and I will have a chance of convincing him/her that I am right?. --ThunderheadX (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ThunderheadX, an RFC is an advertised talk-page discussion. It sounds like you're addressing too many things at the same time. If you say a lot of things, and people only reply to part of what you say, then you usually need to focus on a smaller question. Remember, good Wikipedia articles are usually written over the space of years, not just a couple of days.
My advice to you is to get organized. You need to figure out how many things you want to change, and then discuss each of them separately. It might help to privately make an Outline (list) on paper or in a doc on your computer, so you know what everything is. Then you need to pick one (I recommend the smallest or least controversial – something like "Remove this single outdated sentence") and talk about just that one thing, with laser-like focus. Do not try to solve all the problems at once.
If you can pick out one change that you would like to make, then you can post it here, and we'll help you figure out how to ask that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To put a finer point on it: Your actual proposal is quite simple - delete the whole section. But if you propose that, you aren't going to get a usable debate on whether the section is good or bad; you're going to get mired in discussions of compromises, where some of the section is deleted and some is kept, some is moved to other sections, and problems are fixed by rewording and adding citations.
You asked about the process, though. First, note that there is no arbitration of content on Wikipedia. Nobody is going to come in and rule on whether the sections stays or goes. You post the RfC just as you said. Then, it gets advertised like User:WhatamIdoing said, and strangers will presumably take an interest in the controversy and come and discuss it, along with those who have already been discussing it with you. All of these participants have equal voice in deciding what to do with the article. If the discussion results in a clear consensus on what to do with the article, everyone is supposed to respect that. If consensus isn't clear to everyone, you can file a request for some uninvolved editor to close and summarize the discussion, describing the consensus, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffedata (talkcontribs) 01:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purposing of the article Superbrands for deletion

Talk:Superbrands זור987 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting case... I find a LOT of sources talking about companies/products being listed as a “superbrand” (and I can see the argument that such coverage is an indication that the listed company/product may be notable). However, I find very few sources that discuss Superbrands as a company/organization in its own right. Thus, it may not pass the sourcing requirements laid out at WP:ORG. This raises an interesting question... Can a company issue a list that arguably confers notability on other companies while being itself non-notable? I have posted the same question on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @זור987: This is not the place to propose (please note the spelling) an article for deletion. The possible methods are described at WP:DELETE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for Woman lead image RfC

I am putting together a potentially contentious RfC for the lead image at Woman. Could I have advice for the language of the question? Proposed language:

  1. Should the lead image be changed? (yes/no)
  2. If yes, which of these images should we use instead? (may rank)

I would like to first establish whether there is consensus for the current lead image, and then use rank choice !voting if necessary. I have put together options but I am concerned there are still too many. I am considering just choosing one to make the RfC a simple question: "Which image should we use as the lead image?" Any advice is appreciated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Butternut, would you accept my advice to run away, as fast as possible?
If that doesn't work, then you'll want to read Talk:Woman/Archive 13.
Have you considered establishing consensus for principles before trying to select a specific image? For example: Should the image be a single woman or a group? Do we prefer a non-stereotypical depiction? Do we prefer the image to depict an occupation, rather than a social setting? If it's not okay to show a woman simply existing or engaged in a family or leisure setting, then should the occupation be representative? (Worldwide, retail sales and office work are two of the most common occupations/settings for women.) Do we prefer a particular race? (About 40% of people in the world are from the non-East-Asia parts of Asia.)
It might be hard to get people to apply a rubric, rather than picking whatever their favorite is, but it might produce a more durable outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had initiated the discussion at Archive 13 and participated in most of the others. Principles were discussed at Talk:Woman/sandbox/Archive 2#Criteria. I took those discussions into consideration when I selected these images. Most of the photos from the portrait photographer I found on Flickr happen to be of East Asians, but I also felt that proposing photos of women of a similar race as the existing lead image would reduce conflicts over the race aspect. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There only seem to be a few people responding to you in that discussion, which doesn't indicate widespread consensus for the principles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have advice for the RfC as it is proposed? An alternative might simply be: "Is one of these images an improvement upon the current lead image? (may rank)" Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, single questions are more likely to get clear results. If you put the current image in the list, then people could vote for no change merely by ranking it as best.
Here's another idea: Years back, there was a recommendation that when lots of good images existed, it was a good idea to rotate the images through the article. (Imagine an article about a mountain, and you rotate winter–spring–summer–autumn photos through the lead with each season, rather than picking just one forever.) This was never done very often (it's a bit of work), but I wonder whether this article might be particularly well-suited for that approach. It would eliminate the problem of choosing one person to represent half of humanity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do intend to list the current lead image as an option. I think rotating images would suffer the same problems as galleries where it will encourage debate over which images get included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it to a simple, single question is probably the right way to go; thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just: "Which of these photos is best for the lead image?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's simple enough that people will be able to answer it. You'll probably get some people complaining merely because you're trying to change the image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those complaints will probably not be a strong as the complaints about this image suggestion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting of one listing needed

The listing of Talk:Tom Aikens#Post-closure info must be reformatted. I must have listed two simultaneous discussions on the same talk page, resulting in one incomplete listing. I tried correcting the errors, but one is fully listed, while the other is still incomplete. George Ho (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page explicitly states

Each {{rfc}} tag should also be added in a separate edit, with a delay between each edit to let the bot assign an id number to the first before attempting to start a second.

but you went against that with this edit. It goes on with

If there are two {{rfc}} tags on the same page that both lack the |rfcid= parameter, Legobot will assign the same value to both

and this is precisely what happened, with the effects that you describe above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volume problems

Talk:Malassezia#RfC: Malassezia: D/SD is the first of four RFCs on that page, all opened by the same person in a single edit. The bot can't handle that (in a single edit), and opening multiple RFCs (no matter how many edits) usually makes people angry, especially if all of the RFCs are about questions that have been asked and answered in multiple discussions already, but nobody agreed with me, so I'm starting a pile of RFCs in the hope that one of them will produce the outcome I want. This wasn't a problem back in the day, but we're seeing it several times a year now.

In January, @SMcCandlish added "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time. If any RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." This has been reverted. I'd like to see something like this added. I like the "please do not" feel, and I think that is preferable to an absolute ban. However, I think this restriction is too narrow. Maybe you can have a total of three open RFCs at a time? Or maybe you can open an unlimited number overall, but only one or two RFCs on any given subject?

The problems to be solved are:

  • Wasting the community's time and energy on unnecessary duplicates
  • Avoiding contradictory results (what if my RFC at the article's talk page says "yes", but my RFC at the WikiProject's page says "no"?)
  • Fair allocation of community's time and energy to RFCs by many editors, rather than having one or two get an unfair amount of attention (if I open 10 RFCs, and 10 editors each open one RFC, then I'm just 9% of the editors opening RFCs but I'm taking up 50% of the room.)
  • Preventing survey fatigue

Can we move forward on this, with at least a suggestion that it's a bad idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasting the community's time on duplicate RfCs would be addressed by a rule like you can't open two requests for comments on the same thing (I mean requests for the same comments, not just the same broad topic) in a 6 month period.
Avoiding contradictory results would be addressed by a rule like you can't have two RfCs that overlap (where the result of one would affect the result of another) open at the same time.
Fair allocation of commenter attention would be addressed by a rule like you can't open more than 12 RfCs per year. One could choose to take his limit all in January or get constant low-level attention all year.
Survey fatigue is addressed somewhat by the above, but could also be addressed by a tighter per-page limit since some commenters will be followers of the particular page.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Giraffedata: It's simply redundant to introduce any limitations here. Except of perceived "issues" (usually makes people angry) there is none real actually. Whole series of policies already deal with repeated and persistent attempts to change obviously stable, comprehensive WP:CONSENSUS/WP:SILENCE. I strongly oppose imposing any limitations here or elsewhere on the dispute-resolution process. I suspect that WhatamIdoing is trying to criminalize such process in order to hinder other's progress and have a convenient excuse to avoid cooperating in articles' building efforts. --AXONOV (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would, perhaps obviously, support reinstating the wording I originally used, or something very similar to it: "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time. If any RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." It could perhaps be moderated to something more like: "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time in the same topic area. If the RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." It wasn't really meant to imply that you shouldn't start an RfC about DUE weight in coverage of ancient writers' views of the Celts versus views of modern scholarship, if two weeks ago you already opened an RfC about infobox parameters pertaining to cattle breeds and that RfC hasn't closed.  :-) But we do have an actual problem with both too much of an WP:ANRFC backlog (always), and PoV pushers with poor collaboration and communication skills opening RfC after RfC after RfC to try to WP:WIN by tiring out their opposition and, usually, using non-neutral wording in the half-assed RfCs to try to sway random-editor opinion in their direction.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This basically would be used to prevent everyone from peacefully discussing different issues in separate RfCs and otherwise moving discussions forward. Makes no sense.--AXONOV (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]