Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Get help with writing your RFC question

Ending an RFC, again

[edit]

Here we go again. I had said that the case about the Pope Leo XIV date RFC illustrated that we need clearer guidance about when to end an RFC. User:WhatamIdoing wrote: We have given you a correct and comprehensive answer, including a list of the multiple answers that are correct and appropriate. I see that the problem is that I was asking a different question than WAID was answering. I was asking what had been appropriate in a particular situation. Maybe WAID is saying that in any specific situation, there are always multiple correct answers. I don't think so. Maybe WAID is saying that she would prefer to give general answers which have multiple correct answers depending on the details, rather than answers to specific questions that ask for one answer. I thought that our guidelines on ending an RFC are not adequate for actual situations because they give multiple answers to situations where an editor wants to know what to do.

Anyway, here is another case about ending an RFC to start DRN instead. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#2025_United_Kingdom_local_elections. The originator of the RFC got two answers that weren't the answers they wanted, and so pulled the RFC tag and filed at DRN. This looks to me like forum shopping. Well, so did the Leo XIV matter, and the listing of multiple correct and comprehensive answers to all (or nearly all) questions would seem to encourage forum shopping. So maybe my zeroth question is whether we want to encourage forum shopping, at least implicitly, or whether it is desired to discourage forum shopping.

So maybe my first question is whether the filing editor was right or at least reasonable in ending the RFC to go to DRN instead. Maybe question 1.5 is whether publicizing the RFC at WikiProjects would have been a better approach.

Maybe the second question is whether the guidance on when to end RFCs should occasionally provide actual guidance, rather than leaving the editor to meditate on the complexity of guidance. But I think we already know that reasonable editors disagree on that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • So the bloke started a RFC wanting a "yes". He got two bold "no" !votes immediately and then closed the RFC. That's fully in accordance with our existing guidance at WP:RFCEND: nominators are allowed (and encouraged) to end their own RFCs as "failed" when they realize that's appropriate, and they're allowed to move the dispute to another forum.
Going to dispute resolution seems wrong at this stage, and I hope that a sysop with the temperament for mentorship visits that user's talk page with some friendly words of support and direction.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Addendum on cost]. RFC uses up a lot of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so RFC is an expensive process for us. We want RFCs to end -- preferably with a decision or a compromise, but whatever way, ending them is encouraged. The most expensive ones run full course and need an independent close, but we definitely want lots of cheaper off-ramps.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC opener was within their rights to withdraw the RfC, and I don't think additional guidance is needed, since the withdrawal was in line with RFCEND #1. I can't say if your description of their motivation ("ending an RFC to start DRN instead") is accurate, but it's not particularly on topic for this page regardless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicising RfCs: CONLEVEL and CENT

[edit]

Something I have noticed is that a handful of editors have been very active on MOS talk pages (especially MILHIST) and changing policies and guidelines that affect potentially hundreds of thousands of articles (in the case of capitalisation) without achieving the necessary WP:CONLEVEL. WP:CONLEVEL is clear on this point: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Right now WP:CENT requires that Village Pump be notified, but I don't think that's enough because clearly the wider community doesn't visit that board. I'm reminded of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the plans for Earth's destruction have been on display for 50 Earth years at Alpha Centauri and if we "cannot be bothered to take an interest in our own affairs then we have no right to complain now". A possible solution to this is to add Village Pump talk page (and perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All) to every user's watchlist by default. TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Comment edited because I see now that several projects were notified, also removed mention of an editor because it is unnecessary for the point I was trying to make.10:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:CENT have to do with this? It appears to be a shortcut to the page WP:Centralized discussion, which is a page about the template {{Centralized discussion}}. Is that template used here? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that template used here? Perhaps it should be. Maybe every RfC that can affect more than a certain number of articles (500, 1000, whatever) should be added to the template. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TurboSuperA+: Watchlisting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All won't do any good (see its history, which rarely changes); you need to watchlist the individual pages that it's built from. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does that leave only CENT as a means of notifying "everyone"? Or is there a way to modify the WP:RfC/All page so that it does notify if watchlisted? TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About three quarter million registered accounts will make an edit this year. More than a hundred thousand will make an edit just this month. Even limiting it to WP:XCON doesn't help much, since ~40,000 of them edit each year. Notifying "everyone" will result in completely non-functional talk pages. Is that really what you want?
Looking at it from the opposite perspective, we're getting about two new RFCs per day. Do you personally want to get notifications about 60 RFCs every month?
There are multiple methods for Wikipedia:Publicising discussions. Editors generally use their best judgement to decide which one(s) to use for any given RFC. This has generally been a functional approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean for every RfC, just the ones that affect 1000+ articles, or 10000+ articles. The discussion at MOS:CAPS has the potential to affect hundreds of thousands of articles, why should only the participants of MILHIST and those who visit the MOS:CAPS talk page be the ones to decide? There are many editors who are interested in military history who did not join the MILHIST project. I am not a member of every project in the topic areas I edit in, and I believe that is the case for most editors. I believe this causes problems because editors are not aware that these decisions are being made and only find out after the articles have been changed, and then it becomes an uphill battle to review the RfC or relitigate it. TurboSuperA+(connect) 19:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there are no RFCs that are worth notifying even one thousand editors over, much less "everyone".
The whole point behind the RFC system is that manual notifications (e.g., MILHIST) and those who visit the talk page (e.g., MOS:CAPS) are never the only ones who know about the discussion. RFC == running public advertisements for the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, as one of the editors who is responsible for CONLEVEL's existence, let me say that if it's an RFC – which is practically the definition of "widely advertised" discussion – then it's not a case of "Consensus among a limited group of editors". Second, if it gets adopted into an official policy or guideline, then that is assumed to represent "community consensus" unless and until proven otherwise.
I have seen some editors read CONLEVEL backwards, so for clarity:
  • checkY Good: RFC is advertised on a relevant talk page, and a guideline is updated (or not, depending on what the community decides in the discussion).
  • ☒N Bad: A WikiProject thinks its view is more important than the community's, or that it deserves extra-special notifications compared to the rest of the community.
There's nothing wrong with notifying a relevant WikiProject (e.g., MILHIST for MILTERMS, and I see that you left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Language), but it's not required.
As for how to keep track of RFCs, I suggest that you look into the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. The bot stopped posting notices a few weeks ago but will hopefully be back soon.
You could also watch Category:Wikipedia requests for comment, if you have the relevant setting for "Hide categorization of pages" saved in Special:Preferences#mw-htmlform-changeswatchlist or Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requests for comment, which gets updated by the bot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with all of that, especially the "getting CONLEVEL backwards" problem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FRS exists for a reason. Editors (thousands of them) who want to participate regularly in RfCs sign up to receive notices about them, by particular sorting criteria. When an RfC is formatted properly, and not stuffed into some venue where virtually no one is going to notice it (like a wikiproject talk page, or a template talk page), but put in a high-profile and approriate place, then it will get the attention level that the community in the aggregate think it deserves. For proposals to change guidelines, the sensible venue is the guideline's own talk page, obviously. For something like MOS:CAPS, use WT:MOSCAPS, but also put notice at WT:MOS (the main MoS talk page, which has more watchlisters). Notifying neutrally some especially relevant wikiprojects is reasonable, but too often people attempt to canvas one or another particular ones with activistic messaging. Everyone's getting tired of that, and I for one will alert WP:AN for an RfC shutdown action if I see that happen again. If the issue in question might affect 10,000+ pages, then a notice at WP:VPPOL would probably also be appropriate. At this point, there seems little utility in trying to host the RfC itself in WP:VPPOL. It is unlikely to get more attention that way (things go by at a very fast clip there), and if it turns long, it'll be broken out into a separate page anyway, which means even less attention. It's been my experience that trying to advertise MoS-related RfCs via CENT is generally not useful. The community mostly does not care about (and is actually very tired of) style squabbles over formatting trivia, and various attempts to CENT-ize some MoS-related RfCs have actually been reverted, even in recent memory.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the MoS, I think it's often good to leave a {{Please see}} note at the main MoS talk page. CENT is IMO usually overkill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FRS update

[edit]

The Wikipedia:Feedback request service notification bot went down again. It's been fixed, and Pppery has kindly set up a notification system to let us know if it goes >1 day without sending out FRS notifications. If you can, please watch/subscribe to User talk:Yapperbot so that you can see any messages about the bot being inactive.

If 1 day proves to be too aggressive a setting, we can adjust it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered lists of words to vote on

[edit]

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)[reply]

Lead images

[edit]

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

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

When/where to start RfC proposal for Deprecated source

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

RfCs for article title discussions are still happening

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perhaps you're right. I accept my spanking. Not that I now support you. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha fair enough. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]