Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

Pl. suggest format for RfC

I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.

After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.

Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Please refer to one of your Apr 2024 DRN close, where in you said ".. they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. ..".
I helping as discussion facilitator in above case, but I have not set up RfC for Multiple paragraphs, so please see if you can help out in setting up the RfC. Bookku (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Would wait and look forward to. Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024#Primary preparation of RfC question has multiple proposed additions. I think it would make more sense to have an RFC cover changes only to one section at a time. For example, the "Proposed additions of text 1" covers changes in the section ==Islam==, and the others are about other sections, so just do that one question by itself, and leave the others for another day.
As for getting people to have a conversation, it often helps if they are directly told that the editors are looking for (non-voting) comments, suggestions about how to change the text, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
  • For some or other reason the RfC got delayed since April, though RfC requesting user LPB has very appreciable patience, I had to give way to their request at some point. Bookku (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break for navigation

User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. Though page views to Talk:Jinn increased after initiating RfC increased that did not translate into expected user participation in the discussion, that intrigues me too.
Time constraints and restraints being DRN moderator and Admin on part of Robert McClenon are very much understandable to me, but for sake of improving participation shall need to understand from other uninvolved users What part of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 confuses and puzzles users uninvolved so far? so we can improve possibly this RfC and next RfCs in this series.
Which of following may have area of difficulty to understand?
1) Heading of RfC?
2) Question of RfC?
3) There is no clear support oppose request in RfC question? or Question is too neutral to understand significance to involved users?
4) Sentence/ paragrapha requested to be added is confusing?
5) Ref-List and author brief provided in collapse template.
6) Brief of general content disagreement of involved user provided in collapse template at beginning of discussion section? and it's connect with RfC question?
7) User sandbox which provides glimpse how the change would look?
8) List of questions at user sandbox which will come to RfC one by one?
9) It's some thing else then pl. help understand.
Let me ping few users to uninvolved so far in present RfC to understand their inputs about above questions regarding area of improvement in on going RfC format.
@Eucalyptusmint and Zero0000: @Toadspike and EEng: @TFD and Austronesier: @Maproom and Blueboar:
Why set of above users pinged?
above users may have heard a bit about Talk:Jinn discussion previous at WP:NRON still uninvolved at this moment in on going RfC. - though WP:NRON related RfC question is planned later.
Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't intend to disrupt you. It's not what others are finding difficult but what an uninvolved user like might be finding difficult? Unless we survey we won't understand our area of improvement that's why request. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this is s question about how to ask a question about a topic I know nothing about. I'm out of here. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Not a disruption… I took a quick look at the proposed RFC, and my initial reaction as an outsider was “Too long, didn’t read”. You are asking too many questions at one time.
I was able to understand that the basic question being asked is: “should the article text include statements A, B, and C in sections X, Y and Z”. But about half way through I got lost in the wall of text, and stopped reading. I also quickly got confused by all the green drop down boxes.
My advice is: keep it simple. File an RFC asking about one section, resolve that… then file a second RFC about the next section, etc.
Finally, this is a somewhat niche topic area… I don’t expect you will get a lot of non-involved editors commenting. Ascertaining consensus will be difficult. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you and Blueboar have a point.
Average per day page views in 2023 for Talk:Jinn were 5. After initiating RfC page views were 80, 60, 80 in three days. Idk what can be ideal participation ratio difference is considerable to ignore.
@Louis P. Boog scheduled wiki break is coming let LPB restart the RfC afresh taking above points into account when they come back. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
WAID: It was worse before this fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
My good faith effort was to provide all relevant info at outset through collapse templates, easy navigation and presentation; with your valuable inputs I realize, that actually may have added into complexity. As per inputs henceforth I shall strive to keep it as much simpler.
You would have noticed, I always seek community feed back, fully respect and strive to improve with collaborative support of all Wikipedians. Bookku (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreeing with the points that have been brought up by Blueboar and WhatamIdoing, there's a lot of info. It makes the whole thing hard to follow and takes away from question(s) you are seeking input on. Based on your list of questions above/feedback you're requesting, am providing some thoughts below on "text 1", hoping it can help some.
1) Heading of RfC: instead of saying "proposed additions of text 1", could say, "proposed additions to Islam section"
2) Question of Rfc: currently the proposed question is written as "Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?" Took a look at this section and it has 4 subsections, so it's unclear where this proposed text is meant to go.
3/4) unable to comment as am not familiar with this topic
5) Ref-List and author brief provided: providing reflist is helpful, the author brief isn't needed
6) Brief of general content disagreement: also don't think it needs to be included in the rfc itself, probably can be placed elsewhere
- Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Eucalyptusmint
2) Would it be okay to ask
"Should the following sentence be added at the beginning of section "Islam" in the article?"
Many thanks for valuable inputs. Fyi: @Louis P. Boog
Bookku (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Happy to help! and yep, I think that works. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest having no sub-sections and no instructions. Just ask the question, sign it, and stop. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Most popular if you need an example of what this looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @User:Louis P. Boog Users seem to be finding associating with RfC difficult for unexpressed reason. If there is not adequate participation at this point then, is there a point in continuing RfC at this point? would it be better to suspend the RfC for some weeks and restart when some uninvolved users could tell at least what they are finding difficult with RfC? Bookku (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    No objection. Perhaps I should have gotten involved more when the RfC first opened. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_21&oldid=1248428892"