This is the
talk page for discussing
Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. 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. |
![]() | Dispute Resolution ( inactive) | |||
|
Frequently asked questions
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
In my opinion the article on Reiki is uncomfortably biased and shows bad writing. There are pages and pages of archived and active talk discussions spanning nearly 20 years, and it always seems to revolve around the issue of tone. I think the article is seriously in violation of NPOV and may go against the Manual of Style, but there are some people who seem to take that criticism very personally, and thus reject any neutral debate.
I would like to escalate the issue of the article′s quality to outside of the few people who have consistently been pushing for or against change to neutral third parties within Wikipedia who have more knowledge about editing pages and the Manual of Style than I do. Is an RfC procedure with the question “Does this article comply with NPOV and Manual of Style requirements?” the correct action to take? Maybe some other, less vague or less leading question might be appropriate, but I cannot think of one. Thank you in advance! -- Konanen ( talk) 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
fyi}}
and {{
subst:please see}}
are available for this. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
So i am trying to make an RfC about me wanting to add some additional sources + other questions and stuff. on one of my talk pages, but when I first published the RfC, the quote of my talk page isnt showing.
Location of my rfc:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All (specifically at the science, maths and technology section) My RfC is "Talk:Light skin", the quote of my talk page isnt showing, kindly help me with this. have a good day.
I am new to wikipedia (4 days old) so i am not familiar with codings
Kindly help me with this. thanks Rainbluetiful ( talk) 11:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting inputs @ WT:BRD .. and/Vs #Responding to RfC. Thanks Bookku ( talk) 07:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.
After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.
Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku ( talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
When Legobot removes the RFC template, it also removes the anchor/id number used in various messages. I wonder whether we should expand the directions here with a note about optionally adding an {{ anchor}} for the id number, so that inbound links will keep working?
On the one hand, I reluctant to have even longer instructions. On the other hand, avoiding broken links seems like a good idea in general. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tags may also be removed manually, not just by Legobot action - such as when
WP:RFCEND or
WP:RFCNOT apply. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag from the talk page" to say "To end an RfC manually, replace the {{
rfc|id=123454678}}
tag on the talk page with {{
anchor|12345678}}
, where the number is the id number automatically assigned by the bot to the RFC. The other parameters should be removed."|id=
parameter/alias in
Module:Anchor? It might be easier to tell people to keep the |id=
parameter intact.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
02:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc|bio|rfcid=1234567}}
the corresponding anchor would be {{
anchor|rfc_1234567}}
- you need to add in the rfc_
part. The |rfcid=
is a
hexadecimal number and always has seven characters, I don't know why it's not six or eight. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
![]() | NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. 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. |
![]() | Dispute Resolution ( inactive) | |||
|
Frequently asked questions
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
In my opinion the article on Reiki is uncomfortably biased and shows bad writing. There are pages and pages of archived and active talk discussions spanning nearly 20 years, and it always seems to revolve around the issue of tone. I think the article is seriously in violation of NPOV and may go against the Manual of Style, but there are some people who seem to take that criticism very personally, and thus reject any neutral debate.
I would like to escalate the issue of the article′s quality to outside of the few people who have consistently been pushing for or against change to neutral third parties within Wikipedia who have more knowledge about editing pages and the Manual of Style than I do. Is an RfC procedure with the question “Does this article comply with NPOV and Manual of Style requirements?” the correct action to take? Maybe some other, less vague or less leading question might be appropriate, but I cannot think of one. Thank you in advance! -- Konanen ( talk) 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
{{
fyi}}
and {{
subst:please see}}
are available for this. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
17:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
So i am trying to make an RfC about me wanting to add some additional sources + other questions and stuff. on one of my talk pages, but when I first published the RfC, the quote of my talk page isnt showing.
Location of my rfc:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All (specifically at the science, maths and technology section) My RfC is "Talk:Light skin", the quote of my talk page isnt showing, kindly help me with this. have a good day.
I am new to wikipedia (4 days old) so i am not familiar with codings
Kindly help me with this. thanks Rainbluetiful ( talk) 11:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting inputs @ WT:BRD .. and/Vs #Responding to RfC. Thanks Bookku ( talk) 07:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.
After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.
Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku ( talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
When Legobot removes the RFC template, it also removes the anchor/id number used in various messages. I wonder whether we should expand the directions here with a note about optionally adding an {{ anchor}} for the id number, so that inbound links will keep working?
On the one hand, I reluctant to have even longer instructions. On the other hand, avoiding broken links seems like a good idea in general. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tags may also be removed manually, not just by Legobot action - such as when
WP:RFCEND or
WP:RFCNOT apply. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
22:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc}}
tag from the talk page" to say "To end an RfC manually, replace the {{
rfc|id=123454678}}
tag on the talk page with {{
anchor|12345678}}
, where the number is the id number automatically assigned by the bot to the RFC. The other parameters should be removed."|id=
parameter/alias in
Module:Anchor? It might be easier to tell people to keep the |id=
parameter intact.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
02:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
{{
rfc|bio|rfcid=1234567}}
the corresponding anchor would be {{
anchor|rfc_1234567}}
- you need to add in the rfc_
part. The |rfcid=
is a
hexadecimal number and always has seven characters, I don't know why it's not six or eight. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)