Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 8 |
Archive 9
| Archive 10 →


Contents

RFC not showing up

I added a religion and philosophy RFC here a few days ago, but I don't see it showing up here. Did I make a mistake? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I made a few minor edits to where you included the template that I think might help. Give it some time, and we'll see if it shows up. If not, we'll ask BetaCommand nicely for help (he understands what the bots look for). --InkSplotch (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag old discussions?

What's the tag here? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation is officially dead. {{historical}}? Well, that's what I'm doing; fix if there's a better one. -- Kendrick7talk 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request has not appeared on the list

I added a RFCHist template to Talk:Easter Rising at 19:33.[1] It still has not appeared on the list at 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC). Scolaire (talk)

Sorry, I meant to post this on the list talk page. No, it is actually meant to go here. Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC won't list

I cannot get one to list either, Talk:Gavin_Newsom#No_longer_Roman_Catholic. Maybe I screwed up the template, I don't know, but I re-did it twice and it still is not appearing on the list. Regards.--12 Noon 2¢ 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Same problem at Talk:Neoplasia. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Same problem at Talk:Info-gap decision theory. I have decided to WP:IAR and manually added this item to the list. Hope I didn't offend any bot.. Zvika (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it just takes about a half day. Pundit|utter 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with RFC on Chocolate Thai

I put an RFC in, for chocolate thai. See Talk:Chocolate_Thai. Several hours later, it's still not up. Is the bot that collects RFC tags not working or something, or did I do it wrong? Zenwhat (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zenwhat, I think I wrote you, after the date fix I made to the template, that it'll be included by the bot - sorry it wasn't clear. Pundit|utter 15:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC procedure

This has probably been addressed, but when i see RFC's i see more comments that i'd like to leave a "disagree" statement to then an endorse. Might be too much of a civility problem, but expressing my oppinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Serb propaganda

I don't see the article on the list yet. This is my first time doing this so I might have made a mistake. Could someone look into it and see why it's not listed yet? Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this and see why it is not listed yet? I submitted the request about a week ago. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I saw that there was a small formatting problem with the time section of the template. I fixed it, so perhaps that will help. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC on categories.

There isn't a section in this article for it. Anyone willing to make it? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What did I miss?

Talk:Leni_Riefenstahl isn't showing up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also having a problem with an RFCpolicy not showing up from WT:EPISODE. --MASEM 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts for WikiProjects

I'm not entirely sure if this is the best place to turn to for assistance, but I didn't get any response when I posed my question to WikiProject Southern California. I have noticed that WikiProject Southern California has two shortcuts: WP:SOCAL and WP:WPSC while WikiProject Stub Sorting uses three shortcuts: WP:SC, WP:WSS/ST, and WP:STUBS. I would like to create a shortcut for WikiProject South Carolina, but WP:SC and WP:WPSC are already taken (by projects with multiple shortcuts). Is it first come, first serve? Thanks, MoodyGroove (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

They mostly get gobbled up that way. How about WP:SCAR or WP:SOCAR? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. I know I could come up with some other shortcut. My point is, there ought to be a mechanism for shortcuts to be transferred to a different area of Wikipedia when it is reasonable to do so. WP:SC and WP:WPSC are intuitive choices for WikiProject South Carolina, and I don't see any reason that the above captioned projects need multiple shortcuts. Due to the nature of a wiki, there's no single person to ask "hey, do you mind if I re-route this shortcut?" I could be bold and do it, but I would risk offending someone (actually I couldn't because I don't know how). I'm not sure "first come, first serve" makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for the reply! Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

RFC/U - Disputed process.

Requests for user conduct has been absolutely useless other than for assumptions of bad faith and a stepping stone to ArbCom for two years. Even a few ArbCom members agree. Will (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing that the use of RFC has become depreciated and this part of the official dispute resolution process. I have removed the tag. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see Sceptre has reverted the tag without discussing on this page. I do not feel they have consensus for their position and have reverted them again. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's being discussed on VPP. Consensus is actually forming to kill it. Will (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Section header text must be exactly same

My tag here failed initially. I compared to successful RFCstyle tags and the only difference I found was with the section header format: the successful ones have no space between == and the header text. I edited the section title accordingly, removing the offending space so that it was consistent with no space after section= in the tag. It worked. If repeatable, this should be addressed in the documentation. --Paleorthid (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This facility is denied to IPs

I want to post a request for comment concerning the abuse of admin privileges by TerriersFan but I can't. Why? Because IPs can't create pages, and this overly-bureaucratic procedure requires the creation of a page. Never mind! TerriersFan can continue abusing his position in connection with the semi-protecting of articles, i.e. he doesn't like IPs. And please don't tell me to go and create an account! That would not get to the root of the problem identified here. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Reporting specific behavior on admins should be done over at Adminstrators Noticeboard - Incidents. This page is more for gaining consensus on much broader topics. --MASEM 15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the advice. I'm on my way over there now. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

candidate pages vs. approved

Something that wasn't very clear was who in the process determines if a certain case has met the two-person threshold. Another trusted user that watches this page? I assumed someone else might take care of it, but it's been a couple days without any action regarding Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MPF. If anyone could take an impartial look at that page to see if you think it's met the threshold, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCbot broken

Hasn't updated RFCreli page since 1/15. People have been manually updating it since then without being overwritten. Last edit by RFCbot appears to have been on 1/19, 6 days ago.... 212.227.82.218 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


RFCbot broken

I have added an RFCbot (Pol) at the bottom of the discussion page of the article on Dick Cheney but it is now showing up in the RFC Pol list. Can someone fix this????? Ivankinsman (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to kill RFC/U

I think this should be more clearly stated, and the link provided. The discussion on whether to kill RFC/U is not on this page, but here at the Village Pump. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

first time editor question has a question about the Universe

Moved to Talk:Big Bang. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article RfC archive?

Hi there, I'm trying to find any past RfCs on the article Animal testing, since these have been referred to in a current request for mediation diff. I can't find anything in the Talk:Animal testing archives. Is there some kind of central list I could refer to? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC Cat

I added this to the cat article yesterday, and another editor edited the template to cause a bot error, Please be aware that this is a current RFC. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army

RfC template does no appear to work Bobanni (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AWOL

I think I filled out the template properly. But I don't see the note about the discussion in the list.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian archaeology

The RfC template recently placed at Talk:Palestinian archaeology doesn't seem to be working or set up correctly. Can somebody assist? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What's gone wrong?

Can someone tell me what I've done wrong with Super Smash Bros. Melee? The template won't show on the RFCsci list. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Done now. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Brain Drain

I goofed and put in some wikilinks in the section parameter my {{RFCecon}}. I'd like someone fix the link in WP:RFC/ECON for "Neutrality_and_WP:OR|Original_research_issues?|Talk:Brain drain", which should show up for Talk:Brain drain, going to the section labelled "Neutrality and Original research issues?". Kelvinc (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


How long does it take?

I added an RFC at Talk:History of Sumer, still nothing showing up on the RFC list. Do we have to wait for a Robot to add it? This new system is obviously confusing, it looks like everyone here asks the same question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I also have same question. I listed request for RFC on Talk:Ypatingasis_būrys#Original_research several days ago. But this entry did not appear on this list till today. Any advice is much welcome. M.K. (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't reviewed those pages, but its added by an automatic Bot, so it could be the request was missing a character somewhere or that the Bot hasn't been run in a couple of days. Try pinging User:Messedrocker. MBisanz talk 09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC not being added

I used the following code to add a RfC, but it is not showing up:

RFCsci| section=Fresh restart on aids POV !! reason=I have stated here that a phrase should be removed, my edits have been reverted again without any rationale provided to refute my argument that it is POV. !! time= 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a delay or something I should know of? If not, please feel free to tell me what I did wrong or even directly edit the code here, at the top of the syntax.

Wikipedia:Requests for remedies - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems

Please review and tweak: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence § t/e 22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct

Currently Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct redirects here. I plan to remove the redirect so that it will be its own talk page. And then I will add some comments there rather than here. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with RFChist tag

Hi there. I used the RFChist tag here, but the page has not yet been placed on RFChist list. Thanks in advance for your help, --KoberTalk 06:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Closure

Is there some procedure for closure of an RFC discussion? Generally some discussants will agree with one position, while others disagree and favour another position. That was also the situation before the RFC, so does that mean you're back at the starting point? Also, 30 days is an awfully long time, compared to, for example, the five days for AFD and the seven days for RFA.  --Lambiam 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems getting RFC to work with Bjork article

I have just added an RFC template onto the Bjork article talk page, and the RFC bot removed it with the summary of "removing old RFC". Also, my RFC is not showing up in the RFC listing under RFC bio, and a previous RFC I made on the Bjork article a few months ago didn't work either. Can someone please help? Asarelah (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)