Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts WP:WRFC WP:RFCQ

This is a set of recommendations for initiating requests for comment on the English Wikipedia. The aim is to help editors neutrally and concisely communicate the desired question, and to increase the chances of achieving a useful result with the least amount of disruption.

RFCs are requests for help. It's okay if you don't get everything perfect on the first try. Do your best.

Before you start, think clearly about what you hope to achieve. Do you want to have a particular reverted change restored to an article? Are you looking for advice on how to address a sensitive or complex subject in an article? Are you trying to get general information about how well a policy or procedure is working for other editors?

If your goal is to get an editor to go away or to be prevented from editing, you should not start an RFC.

The opening comment should contain a straightforward question which is as specific as possible. The more specific the question, and the more specific the possible outcomes are, the more likely that the RfC will be able to produce a useful outcome. For example, the question "What should we say in this article's History section?" has many answers, some potentially very complicated. A more practical question would ask whether to include information about a specific event, or whether to include a specific proposed sentence or paragraph.

If it is difficult to find a suitably specific question with a small number of concrete outcomes, other editors may be able to help. If the subject is still too complex, start with an RfC addressing the most important point of contention. Once that point is resolved, consider creating further RfCs addressing any points that remain unresolved.

Don't try to boil an issue down to a simple principle.

Some RfCs do not work because the requester oversimplifies a specific issue to arrive at a question that is so general that answering it is not only difficult, but useless. For example, there may be a dispute between two editors as to whether the article on John Doe should mention that his wife accused him of being the illegitimate father of a child, which he denies. An RfC on the article's talk page asks, "Should Wikipedia articles contain unproven allegations?" Though the requester thinks there is a pat answer to that question (and you can probably guess what it is), the answer is obviously "it depends" and a discussion about it would be difficult and fruitless. The right question would be, "Should the article mention the wife's allegation of paternity?". Comments on that question might involve the general propriety of mentioning unproven allegations.

In general, avoid writing anything that could predispose the reader towards a particular conclusion. Also be careful not to do this by implication: avoid rhetorical constructions and wording choices that indicate preference towards a particular outcome. Some examples of the types of language to avoid can be found at WP:W2W.

The RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome, unless included as part of a brief summary of all sides of the argument. Your own opinions should be posted in a separate comment, not in the question itself. (The question is the part of the page shown on one of the RFC listing pages, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies.)

Any publicizing of the RfC should also be neutral. One option is to say only that input is requested, with a link to the RfC. Common places for notifications include Wikiprojects, noticeboards, and article talk pages that are related to the RfC subject. Notification of individual editors is uncommon and should follow WP:CANVASS.

Outside of exceptional circumstances, the RfC question should not be longer than a few sentences. It can include links to other discussions or other pages, but the topic of discussion and the question being asked should be understandable without them. The RfC can include more than one question, as long as it remains clear and understandable, although it is often better to make separate RfCs instead. As the RfC becomes longer, formatting and wording choices can be useful to help maintain clarity (e.g. collapsing reference lists, marking questions using bold or bullet points, explicitly listing all the expected outcomes).

Poorly written questions can reduce the perceived authority of the RfC result, increase the chance that other editors will misunderstand the question, and make it harder for the closer to assess consensus. Sometimes, an RfC may be modified or closed right after it begins, usually with the agreement of the RfC initiator. Since editing the question can itself lead to problems, especially if several editors have already responded to the question’s previous version, the exact nature of the changes and the time they were made should be clearly recorded.

Objections about the non-neutrality of questions are relatively common on hot-button topics. In some cases, this means that the question isn't biased in the direction that the other editor prefers, or the question may leave out important details or context, or it may be a judgement call where reasonable editors will happen to disagree. Deliberately biased questions are uncommon. These situations can usually be resolved by discussion before the RfC, or sometimes soon after it begins.

It is very rare for an RfC to be closed soon after it starts, unless the RfC initiator has agreed. In most circumstances, editors who find issues with an active RfC will explain their concerns about the question in their response, so that their comments can be understood correctly. Many editors read the comments from previous editors before posting their own replies (but not usually comments on other pages or in other sections), so these explanations may counteract any issues with the initial statements.

• Think carefully about the question beforehand.
• Ask other editors on the talk page whether they think an RfC would be helpful.
• Propose the text of the RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC. Especially get feedback on whether the question is neutral from the editors who disagree with you.
• All other things being equal, make the question shorter, because shorter questions have fewer chances for accidental deviations from neutrality. Extra information can be moved to your personal discussion comment.
• All other things being equal, choose the question with the smallest number of possible answers.

• Should the sentence [quote sentence here, with citations] be included in the History section of the article?
• Should the subject of this article be described as a historian? In the discussion on this talk page, supporting editors have cited WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, while opposing editors have cited WP:V and WP:OR.
• A previous RfC determined that the article should include a description of the subject's views about ancient Egyptian history. Given this result, where in the article should this description be? Options discussed on this talk page include the Views section, the Publications section, and the Controversy section.

In each case, the question could be accompanied by a personal comment in the response section that describes your own position.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting
• List of currently active RfC questions