Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Numbered lists of words to vote on

If you've got a minute, please look in on Talk:J. K. Rowling#Potential RfC questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead images

There should be a separate section for "lead images." ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean that you'd like a page like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, except called Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lead images? And only the (four?) RFCs about lead images would all be on that page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

yep. this is a common enough issue that it should probably be in its own section. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: However well-intended the proposal, this is not going to happen. The main reason for that is that the various RfC categories are hardcoded into Legobot's source code, and for some years now it has been clear that Legobot will not receive any feature enhancements unless somebody other than Legoktm (talk · contribs) is willing to to take over all of the bot's remaining tasks, and are themselves willing to code up such an enhancement. Secondly, you have not demonstrated that a new RfC category is necessary, nor even that it is desired by anybody else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't say if it's necessary but it would be an improvement. However, if necessity is the bar, then I guess I can't argue further. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

When/where to start RfC proposal for Deprecated source

There has been a topic that was discussed at length in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. The discussions around this have been good. But it is time to take action. I would like to propose the adding the source discussed to the WP:RSPSOURCES list, as there were two RfCs in 2020 that established a precedent for exactly this same type of source. I'm not sure how to move this forward, do I add the RfC within the current conversation on the RSN, or does it need a new topic? Outside of the RSN, the source has been discussed on the talk page at length where it has been used most frequently, as well as on sites related to it. I believe there is enough discussion about this source for editors to weigh in here. Nayyn (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nayyn, I'm not a fan of the RSP system, but if you want to do this, then you need to assemble some information. Specifically

1. Make a list of previous discussions. These need to be significant discussions, not just "Hey, that's not a good source, so try this other one" followed by "Okay, thanks for telling me". You need at least two that are "significant" for this exact website; it's not good enough to have a discussion for a similar type of website. (The reason we require significant prior discussions is to rule out the stuff that's easily settled.) The current discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#baronage.com doesn't count, because any RFC would be interpreted as an extension of that current discussion, rather than a prior discussion.
2. Have some evidence that the source is actually getting used, because people will get mad if you waste their time on a huge discussion to ban something that isn't causing problems. Start with Special:LinkSearch/*.baronage.com (currently shows seven articles). That's probably not going to meet the "widely used" requirement.
3. Write a simple statement of what's wrong with the source. This statement should align with your recommendation. For example, don't say "It doesn't cite external sources, and it publicly doesn't name the authors, and even though none of that is required by any sourcing policy or guideline, and I've never found any actual mistakes in it, I don't think we should use it" and then recommend deprecation. Similarly, don't say "Completely makes stuff up out of whole cloth, last week was saying that french fries are the healthiest type of food and that the Beatles were shape-shifting aliens" and then recommend "additional considerations".
4. After (if) you have accomplished all of the above, write an RFC.

The usual format for RSPs is IMO not very good. It typically says something like this:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

You add a sentence above saying what the source is, and a few links below describing the information you collected in steps 1 and 2, followed by your brief recommendation from #3 (or you can just add your vote as the first, and people will see it – just sign with ~~~~ or ~~~~~ before your own vote, so the RFC bot knows that your vote isn't part of the RFC question). Then people vote based on the consequence they want to accomplish, e.g., if I'm a POV pusher, then I vote that sources supporting the 'wrong' view are "generally unreliable" or even should be "deprecated", even if they don't meet those standards. So I've been thinking that it might help to restructure it this way:

1. Reliable in most cases; has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.
2. The source is biased in what or how it covers some or all subjects, and it also has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team.
3. Somewhere in between generally reliable and generally unreliable. It may be used only in contexts editors agree are suitable (including, potentially, to support information about a living person). Editors may prefer finding and using better sources.
4. Questionable in most cases, usually due to having a poor reputation for fact-checking or repeatedly failing to correct errors. May be due to being self-published or user-generated. It should never be used for information about a living person, except for uncontroversial self-descriptions. When possible, editors should find and use better sources.
5. Should be generally prohibited. All uses except uncontroversial self-descriptions should be promptly tagged with {{better source needed}} in all articles or replaced. Editors who try to add it should be warned against doing so via Special:AbuseFilter.
6. Has been persistently abused, especially in the form of external link spamming. All uses should be promptly removed,

The RSP key code for these would be 1=GREL, 2=still GREL, 3=Other considerations, 4=GUNREL, 5=Deprecated, 6=Spam blacklist.

And, if all of that sounds like it's not going to work, then I think you should consider attacking the problem from a different direction. Specifically, consider starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage to see whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Sources of information could usefully be expanded with information about sources that are easy to find online, but which the group doesn't recommend for various reasons. While a WikiProject's advice isn't "the rules", WP:RSP also isn't a policy or guideline, and WikiProjects are generally believed to give good advice, so editors generally want to follow the advice they give. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing thank you so much for the comprehensive reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to put all of this down in detail. It does seem quite like a lot of effort to put in for something that now is less of an issue as one of the parties involved has been blocked. All that has come up in this space trying to maintain straightforward Wikipedia policies around BLPs and non-self promotion has rather turned me off of editing anything related to this. Thanks to this insight, I think I'll avoid initiating a debate on it. Many thanks again for taking the time to explain it all in detail, I will be sure to proceed carefully should it come up again. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

RfCs for article title discussions are still happening

Six or so years ago, we agreed to set down a list of processes for which RfC was not appropriate, this may be found at WP:RFCNOT. Despite this, some people do still launch an RfC for an article titling matter. One such recent case is at Talk:Tales of the Jedi (TV series)#RFC: Article title, where some users - including Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs), Mr. Starfleet Command (talk · contribs) and Trailblazer101 (talk · contribs) - have essentially stated that they do not wish to use the dedicated WP:RM process. How should we proceed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Procedural closes of the RfCs. Processes should be used as intended. This would be a legitimate admin action not requiring a consensus, IMO. The consensus is implicit in the long-accepted process. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a misleading summary of what is happening and you know it Redrose64. We have very clearly explained, multiple times, that this is not a move request. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"What title should be used for the article on Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld?" Looks like three RMs to me. If you're saying that it's not suitable for RM because you didn't propose a specific change, I disagree. If it's about article titles, it's RM. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 07:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding the situation. This is about one article, currently at Tales of the Jedi (TV series). It contains information on the three miniseries Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld which are grouped together. As you have conveniently left out, the RFC has a second part to it: "Or should they be split to separate articles?"

To be clear on the situation: we just had a move request fail for this article because no one could agree on what title to move it to, and there is still some support for splitting each miniseries to its own page rather than having this one grouped article. To avoid another failed move discussion, we agreed to hold an RFC to determine whether the article should be split or not, and what title to use if it is kept. Once that discussion ends and there is clear consensus, we can proceed with a move discussion or a split discussion as needed. So this is not a violation of WP:RFCNOT because we are not using an RFC to replace a move discussion or a split discussion. We will still have to hold one of those after. But we feel this is necessary to do first to avoid another failed discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It's very possible I don't understand the situation; I haven't been involved. As you have conveniently left out suggests you think I have a dog in this fight, not to mention violating AGF. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair, I was just responding to your comment. You did leave out half of the RFC question with no explanation, and you made your feelings on the matter clear: "Looks like three RMs to me" "If it's about article titles, it's RM." Perhaps you should try to understand the situation before you tell someone that they are doing something wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. I accept my spanking. Not that I now support you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Haha fair enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not committed to carrying out the discussion in question as an RfC. Until the RfC was started, I hadn't read WP:RFCNOT, and since then all I've done is explain why it was done as an RfC rather than an RM – not defend it (or argue against it, either).

That said, I don't think this is a cut-and-dry issue. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I literally said this RfC is to gauge the wider community's perspective on what title a prospective RM would be for. This RfC is a precursor to a new RM because the prior two ended with no consensus. Please be transparent next time. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 13:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an RfC expert/judge by any means, but as an uninvolved editor, the RfC by adamstom97 looks fine to me. Some1 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think maybe this complies with WP:RFCNOT because it is not about renaming an article and is not about splitting an article -- it is about both. Consequently, neither alternative venue would be appropriate.

I'm disappointed that the issue couldn't be broken down into two issues (renaming and splitting) with separate discussions in the appropriate place for each, but I'll defer to the people who were there when that was tried and didn't work. It sounds like some people were unable to discuss the proper name for the combined article because they couldn't see past the fact that there shouldn't be a combined article. I might have suggested doing a pure split proposal after the move request failed, with the move request repeated if the consensus were not to split, but people involved thought a merged discussion was a better idea and I'm not going to question that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, while using the specialized processes is definitely encouraged and preferred, RFC can be used for any discussion. If (e.g.) an RM gets thoroughly stuck, then RFC may be able to supplement that process by inviting in other editors. But that should be relatively rare. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I do believe the natural flow of the past discussions leading to this RfC was inevitable and that the wider input from the community has already proved valuable in working towards a clear consensus for what to do with the article in question and its scope. I don't think there are any policy violations being made here, not from what I can tell given the good intent behind the RfC and all the work in collaborating with others to reach a consensus over the past year. I do find debating about how to discuss a way to communicate with our fellow editors to be partially an unproductive task, but if others view certain editorial acts as bypassing the established system to resolve this long-term dispute, then I would consider taking this to ArbCom as a last resort (regarding the use and application of an RfC, not determining what to do with the subject article, of course), but I hope that proves to be unnecessary. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 03:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

While there's nothing wrong with using an RFC to determine appropriate dispute resolution, I'm not confident that's what is happening here. If it was about deciding whether a Move or Split discussion was appropriate, there would be two simple options (eg., Should this dispute be resolving as a Move Discussion or a Split discussion?). Instead, the RFC includes language like:

• What title should be used for the article on Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld?
• the goal is to choose one of these title options.

If this is a discussion where the outcome is to inform the method of resolution, why does it include detailed options? Why is "the goal" to select a title? Why are participants voting on and outlining their rationale for a title choice instead of their rationale for the method of dispute resolution? At best, this RFC is malformed. I was notified of this via a post on my Talk page, and it immediately looked like WP:RFCNOT, no matter what the comments tried to clarified below. Otherwise, the goal is to choose one of these title options doesn't make any sense—it's presupposing the outcome by stating that the goal is to Move the article. It comes close to suggesting "Split" is a minority position (there is still some support for not having this group / sub-franchise article, so that is an option below) when, if that were the case, there would just have been consensus to move it in the first place.

Incidentally, I would have voted for Move and then to rename to one of the obvious candidates — ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the RfC should have been worded better. However, it's worth noting that it did in fact include "two simple options":

• Option 1: Split the article to Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld with no central page
• Option 2: Keep a central page (individual pages can be split off in the future when it makes sense per WP:SIZE and other considerations)

The proposed titles for the page were sub-options under Option 2. Still, it probably would have been better to either not include those sub-options or to start a move discussion instead of an RfC.

Noel Tucker (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

In the vote by Favre1fan93, they write (with appropriate redirects created if 2A or 2D is chosen). It certainly looks like they think the outcome of this will be renaming (they're advocating for redirects, that they'd still have to restate at another discussion otherwise). Just close the RFC and open a new one IMO. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

They think the outcome will be renaming the article because they are voting for it to be renamed. That doesn't change the fact that one of the options is clearly for splitting the article instead of renaming it. As has been stated multiple times here, the aim of this discussion was to determine (a) whether there was consensus to split the article, and (b) what the article should be called if it was not being split. These two questions derailed the previous RM and needed to be worked out before another RM was attempted. If this is a discussion where the outcome is to inform the method of resolution, why does it include detailed options? Why is "the goal" to select a title? Because the desired outcome is the ability to move forward with a split discussion knowing there is clear consensus for that, or to move forward with an RM knowing what title the majority of participants would support. If we did not do this and went straight into another RM where some editors still supported splitting the article and the rest couldn't agree on what the new title should be, we would have another failed RM and have just wasted everyone's time. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

No, they think the outcome will be renaming the article because that is the first item on the agenda. If the aim of this discussion was to determine (a) whether there was consensus to split the article, and (b) what the article should be called if it was not being split, why was the section heading "RFC: Article title" and the very first question What title should be used for the article on Tales of the Jedi, Tales of the Empire, and Tales of the Underworld? Splitting is first mentioned in the second sentence, Or should they be split to separate articles?, which gives it all the appearance of a secondary matter. Now, if the section had been titled "RFC: Article scope", and the first question "What should the scope of this article be?", it would not have come across as a move request. If that question - or something similar - had then been followed by the split question and then the title question, in that order, people would have treated the page title as a matter subsidiary to a potential split. I stand by my post of 22:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That is nonsense. I did not put as much thought into naming the section or ordering my wording as you seem to think, which should be clear from the fact that I used the exact opposite order for the list of options (split first, then the name options). You are acting like I had malicious intent to undermine Wikipedia's procedures by slipping a secret RM through as an RFC. That is not true and, frankly, it is ridiculous. I am just trying to clean up the mess caused by multiple failed RMs and discussions that were going in circles. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and @Redrose64, would it be possible to reword the RfC to clarify its intended purpose and outcome? Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is not going anywhere. If neither avenue is sufficient for this very specific and delicate process in particular, then we may have to consider taking this to WP:DRN. I don't think we can retroactively reword an RfC once its has been opened and garnered responses like this. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t wait 4-8 weeks for an RFC to close that multiple editors have questioned as malformed, including the RFC board. You’ll just need to remake it in 4-8 weeks (if a closer ever closes it – more likely it just stays open). I’d open a new one with a new question and ping previous participants because – personally – an RFC that multiple uninvolved editors interpret differently (or wrongly, as you say) isn’t the hill I’d pick to slowly die on. Ideally, RFCs mean the same thing to everyone who reads them. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I second this - the wording was definitely confusing or misleading, regardless of intent, so if we can't change the wording, we should probably start a new RfC with better wording, or go directly to an RM, but one way or the other we shouldn't leave things as they are now, IMO. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why a new RFC is needed. Some uninvolved editors have misconstrued what is happening here, but there is nothing misleading about the wording. We want to know if the article should be split, or what title it should be moved to if it is not split. The RFC wording makes that perfectly clear, and all of the editors that have commented so far have understood that. Starting another RFC just because of some bureaucratic nonsense isn't going to be helpful. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard discussions work best when there are a small number of dedicated editors involved (say, two to six). You'll have to finish/stop all other Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes first (no RMs, no RFCs, no split proposals, etc.) and all of the stakeholders will have to agree to use the DRN process (everyone on board, and no side discussions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to a DRN discussion about the application of RfCs, not to resolve the Star Wars article dispute, which seems to have a more clear consensus this time around, regardless of the technical restrictions behind the mode of discussion. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Since my thoughts are similar to Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)'s, I'll return to the original question: How should we proceed?

By issuing guidance for commonly seen complicated RM cases. If participants can more easily learn how to arrive at consensus when a split or some scoping problem also comes up at RM, RfC may see fewer such discussions.

If avoiding WP:CREEP is a priority, we can frame these as suggestions for best approaches or document a couple of actual discussions. In addition to the unable to discuss the proper name for the combined article because they couldn't see past the fact that there shouldn't be a combined article problem, a common complication is what I call the scope-or-title chicken-or-egg scenario, where a change in title would change the article scope, and consensus to rescope is not readily apparent. My hypothetical guidance might use Talk:Late Bronze Age Troy#Requested move 3 October 2021, whose proposer created a draft to show what the scope of the proposed title would look like, as a successful navigation of this problem.

Anyway. Just brainstorming here. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Part of the problem that led us to this point at Tales of the Jedi (TV series) is that the RM changed course multiple times. Several editors expressed support for an alternate title that had been rejected already, and then a new title was recommended that gained some traction but by then the whole discussion was a mess. I tried to get everything back on course but didn't have any success. Effectively starting from scratch was determined to be the best way to move forward. I don’t think this guidance would have helped avoid that outcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

What should we do? We should not prize bureaucracy, but what does seem like a good idea is when warranted, people hold a two part RFC/RM combined. RFC dealing with scope and organization and RM dealing with new title, holding them together will be more efficient and likely lead to better discussion of all the issues (as for any other new article that might arise: that will take the title the creator puts in (so good if they have some advice on that too). (And if people at Move Reveiw can't figure out what parts of the discussion deal with moving the title, perhaps they should try harder). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

My 2¢: who cares? Firstly, this is complex issue with both split and RM aspects, so neither process is wholly appropriate. Secondly, the discussion is taking place on the talk page of the article in question. There is no "venue" issue here, as either a split or an RM would take place there as well, meaning that it is clearly already in the right place. And thirdly, WP:NOTBURO. People are missing the forest for the trees here. The purpose of the discussion is to determine consensus about article scope and content. An RFC is a valid method discussion for that. oknazevad (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Precisely this! Thank you for understanding! This is not a one size fits all scenario, and sometimes, the system and established processes do not cover every very specific situation that editors will come across. We should not be entirely beholden to some rules just because the given topic at hand is not addressed to a tee. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is right on point, which is why I suggested earlier that we ignore all rules and move forward with the natural discussion that has reached a pretty clear consensus at the Star Wars article since this was brought into contention. Not much harm in gauging the wider community's input. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 06:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

How my correction added clarity and transparency

New:

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Unfortunately, statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation introduce more risk of having Wikipedia editors not read it, usually through instruction creep, thus abandoning their initial desire to weigh in, without which harms the verifiability of Wikipedia and can even make finding this level of consensus impossible. The next, worse risk is of explicit neutrality violation involving a ===Discussion=== subsection; the lower prominence that comes with maximizing comprehension beyond the minimum required level makes it first-in-line for abuse.

Old:

This lack of contextualization of instruction creep makes it unclear. This inferred wrongness makes it obscure.

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent. Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverted this change which I simply cannot understand. Seems like trying to crowbar some kind of opinion about RfC conduct into this WP:Information page ? Bon courage (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed @Giraffedata has removed all references to instruction creep, but from that article it links to TLDR which I think goes against your Cynic's Appendix, in your userpage. 5. Any editor who argues their point by invoking "editor retention", is not an editor Wikipedia wants to retain. Now, others are also against bringing up one guideline as "the rules", understandably, but now you should admit that you're the one crowbarring something into Wikipedia.Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

These pages are meant to help editors understand site processes and social norms.

It is unfortunate, for example, that statements are worded as questions. That's one behavior the guideline is being written to address. It's not inferred there's wrongness, it's plain there is given the medium through which participants will encounter a given RfC. That is the accumulated wisdom from experience with the process, a form of site consensus.

That ties into what is a slightly glaring non-sequitur about what guidelines don't say. The section is trying to provide guidance for editors who want to achieve this brevity and neutrality. I'm not sure why the instinct is to remove any concrete guidance and explanation from the section entirely, unless it amounts to a basic lack of familiarity with the realities of bad RfCs, or with the reality that consensus levels aren't strictly stratified, and a passage like this is here because it's particularly visible and useful. Remsense 🌈 论 04:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's unfortunate that RFCs usually open with a question ("Shall we mention this in this article?") instead of a statement ("We should mention this in this article").

The other problem addressed in that paragraph is the problem of editors making up non-existent rules about how RFCs "ought" to be conducted (i.e., so that 'my' side will win). One of the common bits of misinformation is that the person starting an RFC with a suitably brief RFC question ("Shall we mention this in this article?") is not allowed to explain ("'This' means...") or even to post a long answer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, "We should mention this in this article", whilst brief, is not neutral: it introduces opinion at the second word. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I would change the sentence to "can detract especially from the RfC process of consensus-driven decision-making." Would that be okay?Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

change what exactly? Bon courage (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not want those words added to this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I would point out the section (maybe I should've mentioned) is about a positivist perspective on RFC, not negativist. It's actually dependent on the reader to know when a heel turn is being made.Lumbering in thought (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear I restrained on it being "wrong" to just "unfortunate reality". It is saying it's usual for people to be less confident by framing a statement as an interrogative statement rather than a declarative statement. And I also think what is obscure is not commenting on "answering your own question" and the like in an improminent area. Lumbering in thought (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Re-make after a careful re-reading and some input.

New proposal: Due to less dramatic difference than initially thought when spelled out for accuracy, only unclear for those that disagree with TLDR, and obscure for those who severely distrust interrogative statements as well due to them being able to be answered rhetorically, I rescind this proposal.

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Interrogative statements, indicating less confidence than their declarative counterparts, are often made, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation introduce more risk of having Wikipedia editors not read it, usually through instruction creep, thus abandoning their initial desire to weigh in, without which harms the verifiability of Wikipedia and can detract especially from the RfC process of consensus-driven decision-making. Finally, a worse risk is of explicit neutrality violation using improminent areas (e.g. involving a ===Discussion=== subsection; the goal of increased comprehension beyond the minimum required level can make it first-in-line for abuse).

Old (for reference):

The initial RfC statement (and heading) should be neutrally worded and brief. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" There is no actual rule saying that editors who start RfCs must make their initial explanations look like they are responses to the question (e.g., by placing them inside a ===Discussion=== subsection) or otherwise making them less prominent. Lumbering in thought (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like an increase in words & syllables without adding any useful information. Also, it doesn't really make sense. Bon courage (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

As long as I'm finally aware of what this paragraph is saying, I'm happy. Lumbering in thought (talk) 10:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If your goal is awareness, I'd suggest asking questions rather than making proposals. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

1. Is this related to Talk:Antisemitism#"We know that the Semites include Arabs."?
2. We aren't using "interrogative statements" because we're "indicating less confidence". We are asking questions because we want editors to answer them. Think about going to a restaurant and being asked "What would you like to order?" Ask a question when you want an answer from other people. For example, ask "Should the lead of this article say that the word anti-semiism is sometimes used to describe anti-Arab racism, citing sources such as [1][2][3]?" Then you need to sit quietly and wait for other editors to answer your question, with responses like "No, because WP:NOTDICT" or "Yes, but per this source [4] we also need to say that this has always an uncommon meaning and that it has basically never been used that way since the 1970s" or "No, because even though it's true, the scope of this article is discrimination against Jews and not anything this word has been used for" or whatever they want.
3. "Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation" do risk Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read, but our concern is that "Lengthy paragraphs for an initial explanation" increase the risk of biased questions and especially that they increase the risk of screwing up the page formatting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.
4. There is no evidence that long RFC questions result in editors "abandoning their initial desire to weigh in". They usually answer the questions anyway. Garbled RFC questions risk low participation, but a long RFC question that is clear and sensible does not have this effect.
5. The result of a low response is not a result that "harms the verifiability of Wikipedia"; many RFCs have no significant element of WP:V involved. It can – sometimes – "detract especially from the RfC process of consensus-driven decision-making", but this is a needlessly long way of saying it.
6. I still have no confidence that your sentence "Finally, a worse risk is of explicit neutrality violation using improminent areas (e.g. involving a ===Discussion=== subsection; the goal of increased comprehension beyond the minimum required level can make it first-in-line for abuse)" means, well, anything. Implicit neutrality violations are bigger problems. A ===Discussion=== subsection – which is a section where RFC respondents discuss the subject, not a place where the person starting the RFC gets to pontificate unchallenged – isn't a neutrality problem. In fact, a ===Discussion=== subsection can be a great place to discuss concerns about neutrality.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Unlike your de facto ally @Bon courage who has explicit disagreement with TLDR, which tellingly you didn't address their actual non-response/stonewalling concerning WP:BLUD and tendency to ignore my own recollection of events in Talk:Antisemitism#"We_know_that_the_Semites_include_Arabs." and seemingly devolving into your attempt to weigh in on such a prospective RFC, nothing else here seems to disagree with my evaluation, where only those who severely distrust interrogative statements as well due to them being able to be answered rhetorically are condemned. Lumbering in thought (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

RFCs tend not to produce rhetorical answers, regardless of whether the opening line ends with a period or a question mark. You can safely stop worrying about rhetorical responses in terms of RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm out, and I'd suggest that this mixture of unclarity and hostility is best met with brevity. I don't support the initial proposed change or any of the alternate formulations, all of which would lengthen and confuse the guidance. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)