Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:RFC

NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.

Archives
For why RfC was created, see Archive at WP:Resolving disputes Archive 1 Archive 2: Feb 2004–May 2005 Archive 3: May 2005–Sep 2005 Archive 4: Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Archive 5: Oct 2005–May 2006 Archive 6: May 2006–Dec 2006 Archive 7: Jan 2007–Jun 2007 Archive 8: July 2007–Dec 2007 Archive 9: Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Archive 10: Feb 2009-May 2009

Contents 1 Archive of past RfCs 2 Latest updates to RFC 2.1 Support for multiple RFCs on one page 3 Template not picked up by bot ? 4 User page Rfc 5 Regarding the RFC on the Osho ( Bhagwan shree Rajneesh ) movement. 6 Requesting clarification 7 Broken listing needs fixing

[edit] Archive of past RfCs

We seem to have Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive but no archives for content or policy issue. This needs to be fixed. The easy way to do it, instead of relying on manual adding to the list, which is hardly consistent, is to use automatic categories. Future RfCs should add the page to a category, and we should categorize past RfCs. I've created Category:Requests for comment as a subcat to Category:Wikipedia surveys and polls as the first step. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but what about links being broken when the relevant talk page is archived? Rd232 ^talk 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

HOW DO YOU CREATE YOUR OWN WIKI PAGE FOR SOMETHING, A COMPANY OR ORGANIZATION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulvan (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Latest updates to RFC

I am delighted to announce that I have completed writing the next generation of automated RFC management.

Confusing RFC tags are going away and never coming back.

New RFC tags will be centered around a single template, {{rfctag}}. To file an RFC for a certain category, you would do {{rfctag|category}}, where "category" is the corresponding category code. That is all you need to do to get the RFC bot's attention, and the RFC bot will infer the rest. This is a giant leap beyond the current system, which has confused too many and has turned an essential Wikipedia function into something which requires a Ph.D. to operate.

I would also like to announce the creation of two new RFC categories: Unsorted, for when no one adds a category to their {{rfctag}} (or a non-existent one), and "WikiProjects and collaborations", to bring attention to discussions about WikiProjects and to advertise collaboration efforts.

The launch of this new system, and the subsequent obsolescence of the old system, will take place in the coming days. It will be apparent when the change has occurred. In the mean time, the current system will still be the way of doing things.

I hope these changes will make using RFC a more simpler experience, with fewer strings attached and a better learning curve. —harej 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the new reftag to Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: UN Sub-Commission well over an hour ago what did I do wrong? --PBS (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal. When coding the bot I made the ignorant assumption that everyone would type out the tag, then hit enter, then begin writing the description. You did not do that, and come to think of it, you really should not have to. I don't have access to the code right now, but I will be sure to fix it as soon as possible. —harej 15:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you edited my edit :-) But the bot still does not seem to have picked up the message :-( Just speculation but can the bot handle two RFCs on the same talk page? -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it cannot. If that RFC in particular is #2 on that page, that is why the bot is not acknowledging it. —harej 19:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Support for multiple RFCs on one page

That would seem to be a disadvantage of this system, because when the system was manual no such limitation existed. Was it also a limitation on the previous bot system? --PBS (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Or a particular advantage, because it will discourage editors from making multiple, possible spurious, RfCs. RfCs can be submitted as a way of delaying the inevitable, or interupting the normal flow of a talk page such as preventing consensus decisions, or a way of implying that something which is 99% certain or settled is in fact uncertain and unsettled. Meowy 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree very much with PBS. I know for certain that the previous bot did allow cross-listing under multiple topics, which can be helpful when an issue spans topics. If the new bot does not support that, then that is a bug that needs to be corrected. The issue that Meowy raises is really not a matter of multiple listings, but of listing at all, and seems to me to be a separate issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The lack of support for multiple RFCs on one page is a bug, not a feature. I will try to fix it. I have an idea in mind. —harej (EQUALITY!) 17:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot now supports up to three RFCs on the same page. —harej (EQUALITY!) 01:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The entry for on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography contains the title of the first entry on the page Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: Armenian National Institute, Inc. and links to that section but the entry now contains the text from the second section Talk:Recognition of the Armenian Genocide#RFC: UN Sub-Commission. --PBS (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One of them didn't have a timestamp, and in order for a block of text to be considered the description, it has to end with a timestamp. I added a timestamp, so I think that should solve the problem. —harej 00:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That happened because one was placed under the old template and was still in place when the new template was introduced (which was used for the second one). Both seem to be working now :-) --PBS (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template not picked up by bot ?

RfC templates added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Teachings_of_Prem_Rawat&diff=prev&oldid=293057844 appear not to have been picked up. As there are no other RfC entries for 29th May perhaps this is a problem with the Bot rather than the formatting of the Templates. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User page Rfc

Is it normal to have an Rfc on a user page? A discussion was started at The Village Pump by Jarry1250, see here. This editor has now started an Rfc on his own user page: User:Jarry1250/RFC. Is this acceptable? Thanks for any guidance on this. --Kleinzach 03:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with it. —harej (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a response at long last! Is there any information on this anywhere? Any guideline or whatever? --Kleinzach 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the RFC on the Osho ( Bhagwan shree Rajneesh ) movement.

This request has been open for 6weeks and no comments have been added for 2weeks, could I please ask for an evaluation and possible closure of this request.Here is a link to the request Talk:Rajneesh_movement#RfC:_Title_for_this_page Just looking at the page, the bot has removed the tag but as yet no comment has been given.(Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

[edit] Requesting clarification

Hi there. I have a situation I've been trying to deal with involving an admin I feel has been abusive with his sysop privileges. However, according to the RFC rules, I can't file an RFC here until I have a second person to corroborate the issue, and at the moment it's just been between myself and the other user.

Is it permissible to ask an uninvolved admin to review the situation and, if he/she agrees that there was a problem, to have that admin join me in filing the RFC? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Bueller? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'm going to assume that this talk page is dead and completely unmonitored. If anyone ever does reply to my question, please leave me a note on my talk page, because I'm no longer watching this one. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Responded on the talk page. II | (t - c) 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Broken listing needs fixing

Please could someone have a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, law, and sex listing for Talk:Unexplained disappearances? I've tried to fix the listing myself [1] but the bot has reverted me, and I don't want to make a bigger mess or appear to be trying to make some inappropriate change. Thanks. 58.8.10.170 (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) - now fixed - [2] - thanks. 58.8.10.170 (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)