Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting
There are multiple formats for Requests for comment. Some options are shown here. All of these formats are optional and voluntary.
Most popular
The most popular option is a single section containing all information and responses of any kind.
==RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?==
{{rfc|hist}}
Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~
|
Separate votes from discussion
Consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second called "threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. Feel free to ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section. This will make the RfC easier to read for the editor who closes it, which is especially important for RfCs that attract a lot of responses. So the RfC might look like this:
==RfC: Is the photo in the history section relevant?==
{{rfc|hist}}
Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~~~~
===Survey===
*'''Support''' inclusion of the photograph, which helps the reader. ~~~~
*'''Oppose''', it isn't relevant enough. ~~~~
===Threaded discussion===
*I have concerns about this photograph. ~~~~
**What kind of concerns? ~~~~
|
Pro and con
For a question that has a "yes" or "no" answer, and people known to support each of the sides, then this side-by-side approach can offer a balanced view:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Should we include a [[metasyntactic variable]] on this page?
|-
! {{yes}}, this is a good idea.
! {{no}}, we should not add this.
|-
| scope="col" width="50%" | This is the best idea since sliced bread. It complies with all our policies and is sure to improve Wikipedia.
| scope="col" width="50%" | This is the wrong idea, at the wrong time, on the wrong page. Also, the proposers haven't suggested any sources yet.
|}
which produces this:
| Yes, this is a good idea. | No, we should not add this. |
|---|---|
| This is the best idea since sliced bread. It complies with all our policies and is sure to improve Wikipedia. | This is the wrong idea, at the wrong time, on the wrong page. Also, the proposers haven't suggested any sources yet. |
What to do about the date stamp: For the sake of the RFC bot, please do not put any date stamps (~~~~ or ~~~~~) inside the table, because the bot will then not copy the end of the table formatting. You can add a signature without a date by typing ~~~ if you want to show who wrote the statement. You either will need to add a separate question and a date stamp before the table (if you want only the question copied by the bot), or you will need to add a date stamp after the table (if you want the whole table copied by the bot).
This format is best when limited to short "headline" length summaries of the main points for and against the proposal. If you need to explain your reasons in detail, or if you have a reason that other people don't necessarily agree with, then add them underneath the table, as part of your own signed comment.