Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
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) | ||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Why is nobody participating in this RfC? Is something wrong with it? ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, an RfC held at a WikiProject forum isn't ideal - it lends itself to lower participation and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. A Village Pump might be better for that in the future - although it's not too late to move it now. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that any of that is true. A local consensus is what happens when a group of editors declare "their" articles exempt from some community-wide rule. RFCs are the antidote to a local consensus, because an RFC advertises the local discussion to the whole community. People getting those messages don't care (or necessarily even notice) what page it's on.
- @BilledMammal, this all happened about a decade before your first edit, but the problems with local consensus came to a head in 2009 and early 2010. We had an RFC that ultimately resulted in both clarifying the Consensus policy and creating WP:ADVICEPAGE. The key discussion that affirmed the undesirability of small groups of editors exempting their content from the general rules was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC – an RFC that started on the WikiProject's talk page.
- @Super ninja2, have you followed the steps for publicizing the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing editors are staying away because it's a Muslim issue and religious crazies are unappealing to everyone else. Why would I posit my opinion in that RfC when I see you and others arguing about it? I only provide my 2 cents when the bar to entry is zero. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Chris, your comment unfairly implies that Muslims are "religious crazies".
- Ten people have been individually notified about its existence. There are 60 on that list at the moment, so we could re-run it. But given that there is a discussion on the same subject, with nine people, in the section immediately above it, I'm not sure why it's in a new section. The RFC tag could have been added at the top of the existing one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman, you either show respect to your peers or I will have to notify ANI about it. Disrespectful. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 01:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Chris is something of a frequent flyer at ANI; I'm sure he's not really concerned about another discussion there.
- In my experience he doesn't necessarily intend to be disrespectful. The problem with being blunt, especially when we can't tell what his tone of voice is or see his body language, is that it often results in misunderstandings that feel very personal to the people on the other end (e.g., to the ~six out of seven people in the world who subscribe to a religion and might think he meant all religious people have mental health problems, or to the one in seven who are Muslim specifically and might think he meant that all Muslims have mental health problems). People's sensitivities are not always obvious to others, so it's best not to use this sort of language. It'd be much better to say something like "I'm guessing editors are staying away because it's a question about Islam and not everyone feels comfortable joining a discussion on religion." WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Whether he is a frequent flyer there or not, that is no excuse to ignore the rules and bypass the policies. Rules are applied on all editors equally and must be adhered by all of them with no exception to those who are frequent flyers on ANI. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 02:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Super ninja2: I was not very kind there and I apologize for having offended. I stay away from that discussion for the same reason I stay away from MoS arguments: I don't feel I can offer an opinion without being inundated by folks on either side. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Whether he is a frequent flyer there or not, that is no excuse to ignore the rules and bypass the policies. Rules are applied on all editors equally and must be adhered by all of them with no exception to those who are frequent flyers on ANI. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 02:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, an RfC on a WikiProjects page encourages participation from members of that Wikiproject and discourages participation from non-members. In other words, it drives down overall participation, and has WP:LOCALCONSENSUS issues. BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you ever felt inhibited from participating in an RFC because of the page it was located on? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think what BilledMammal means is just that people who participate in that Wikiproject are more likely to know about it, which can cause selection bias issues - while many people do read RFC/ALL many people arrive on RFCs because it was held on a page they visit. There are definitely some situations where this would make me object to an RFC whose outcome could have been biased by that, especially if there was a more obvious place to hold it - for example, an RFC on the reliability for a WP:BIASED source on the page of the wikiproject for an ideology it is biased for or against, when RSN is a much more obvious and neutral place to hold such an RFC. I obviously wouldn't say that RFCs can never be held on wikiprojects; they're often held there for less controversial things. But selection bias based on where an RFC is held is a reasonable objection if there was a more obvious place to hold it, and the possibility of those objections potentially weakens its impact, making it a poor choice for clearly-controversial and high-impact RFCs. As an example, there's nothing wrong with determining what sources are good for uncontroversial statements about videogames on the videogame wikiproject, but I would consider decisions reached there to have less weight and significance than ones reached on WP:RSN, which has a wider and more general audience, and often wouldn't consider a consensus that a source is reliable reached there to be enough to guarantee that it can be used for more controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or WP:BLP-sensitive statements. That said, in this case the more serious problem is probably just that fewer people knowing about the RFC due to it being held in a relatively obscure has resulted in nonexistent participation rather than a potential bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- He said it drives down overall participation. What you're describing would drive participation up (all the people from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service [which seems to be more popular than the RFC listing pages these days] plus the people watching that page [true for any page]).
- As for RSN being better than Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, it is true that the WikiProject's talk page gets about 25% the page views, but it's also true that they are more likely to know what they're talking about if the question is about which sources are reliable for video games. They've put a lot of work into that particular question. Whether a source is reliable depends on the WP:RSCONTEXT, so no discussion, about any source, discussed anywhere, by any number of editors, is "enough to guarantee that it can be used for more controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or WP:BLP-sensitive statements".
- On the point more relevant to this question, though, we have no evidence that the location of an RFC affects participation at all.
- I've seen several editors making assertions about village pumps and noticeboards during the last few months, and I feel like we're developing this pattern:
- 1: Nobody watches those pages, so an RFC there doesn't get enough participation and doesn't really count.
- 2: What's your evidence that nobody participates in those RFCs?
- 1: I just feel like they don't go to those obscure backwater pages.
- 2: Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter lists a whole lot of highly attended RFCs, and the only ones happening on a village pump were complaining about the WMF. Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported a policy change and Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter don't have any discussions at village pumps or noticeboards either. Ditto forWikipedia:Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something#Miscellaneous, although it has one of those obscure, unnoticeable WikiProject pages that somehow managed to get 900(!) editors to vote on it.
- 1: I still feel like RFCs at RSN get more participation.
- 2: A quick look in RSN's archives indicates that last four RFCs there got 6, 22, 28, and 3 (yes, three) editors involved. That's about average, e.g., compared to the oldest four at Wikipedia:RFC/BIO today. WikiProject Football is hosting an RFC right now with more than 30 editors participating so far.
- 1: Look, you're trying to be all factual and mathy here, but what matters to me is that I don't feel like I have as fair a chance at intervening in a discussion if it's not on one of the pages that I personally check on a regular basis.
- If you glance through my story and think that you might not really have any evidence behind your belief that the namespace mattes for RFC participation, then (a) I'd love to have the numbers, and (b) can I interest you in signing up for the Wikipedia:Feedback request service, so you'll be personally notified of every RFC in your interest areas?
- I really do want the numbers, if anyone's willing to slog through the archives. A year's worth of simple, basic descriptive statistics on every RFC would be an amazing resource for helping editors set appropriate expectations for how many comments/editors they can expect. I suspect that the typical range is something like 5 to 20. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
2: Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter lists a whole lot of highly attended RFCs, and the only ones happening on a village pump were complaining about the WMF. Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported a policy change and Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter don't have any discussions at village pumps or noticeboards either. Ditto forWikipedia:Times that 300 or more Wikipedians supported something#Miscellaneous, although it has one of those obscure, unnoticeable WikiProject pages that somehow managed to get 900(!) editors to vote on it.
- I think that’s because nobody has updated the lists; they’re missing the LUGSTUBS and probably many more. BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: FRS is one method of finding out about new RfCs; there are others which also do not require you to have watchlisted the page where the RfC is actually being held. For instance, you can watchlist one or more of the pages listed at Template:Wikipedia RFC topics, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy (don't bother watchlisting the three shown as "View all" unless you like reverting incorrect edits). Then there is article alerts see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Article alerts#RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for this! Remsense诉 15:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe we should put a list of ways to find out about RFCs on the main page, since many editors seem to believe that their primary method (e.g., watching a village pump page) is really the only option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for this! Remsense诉 15:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- BilledMammal, please feel free to update the pages. LUGSTUBS had 130 participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: FRS is one method of finding out about new RfCs; there are others which also do not require you to have watchlisted the page where the RfC is actually being held. For instance, you can watchlist one or more of the pages listed at Template:Wikipedia RFC topics, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy (don't bother watchlisting the three shown as "View all" unless you like reverting incorrect edits). Then there is article alerts see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Article alerts#RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think what BilledMammal means is just that people who participate in that Wikiproject are more likely to know about it, which can cause selection bias issues - while many people do read RFC/ALL many people arrive on RFCs because it was held on a page they visit. There are definitely some situations where this would make me object to an RFC whose outcome could have been biased by that, especially if there was a more obvious place to hold it - for example, an RFC on the reliability for a WP:BIASED source on the page of the wikiproject for an ideology it is biased for or against, when RSN is a much more obvious and neutral place to hold such an RFC. I obviously wouldn't say that RFCs can never be held on wikiprojects; they're often held there for less controversial things. But selection bias based on where an RFC is held is a reasonable objection if there was a more obvious place to hold it, and the possibility of those objections potentially weakens its impact, making it a poor choice for clearly-controversial and high-impact RFCs. As an example, there's nothing wrong with determining what sources are good for uncontroversial statements about videogames on the videogame wikiproject, but I would consider decisions reached there to have less weight and significance than ones reached on WP:RSN, which has a wider and more general audience, and often wouldn't consider a consensus that a source is reliable reached there to be enough to guarantee that it can be used for more controversial, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, or WP:BLP-sensitive statements. That said, in this case the more serious problem is probably just that fewer people knowing about the RFC due to it being held in a relatively obscure has resulted in nonexistent participation rather than a potential bias. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Have you ever felt inhibited from participating in an RFC because of the page it was located on? I haven't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm guessing editors are staying away because it's a Muslim issue and religious crazies are unappealing to everyone else. Why would I posit my opinion in that RfC when I see you and others arguing about it? I only provide my 2 cents when the bar to entry is zero. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I would feel like I'm imposing the generic, classically Wikipedian take onto the conversation—i.e. that I would disagree with the use of an icon in such a manner—since I do not have any special insight into this specific use case. You can get that take from anyone! Remsense诉 08:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Would this be appropriate?[edit]
The discussion at Talk:Vasa (ship)#rfc_F2210DD now has closely related discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Splitting notes is an arbitrary Wikipedia-made standard with unknown consequences for readers. The editor who made that post has not mentioned the Vasa (ship) RfC. I am not clear whether or not it would be appropriate to mention the RfC at the discussion at the Citing sources talk page. With the growing body of support at Citing sources for my own point of view, I wish to avoid any suggestion of canvassing or other improper behaviour. Yet it seems to be unhelpful for the discussion to be going on in two places. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- We try very hard to avoid a WP:TALKFORK situation. The usual way to do this is to leave a brief note in both discussions to say something like "Editors interested in this might also be interested in the related discussion at [link]." If you are in an argument with someone (in either location), then you may prefer the {{please see}} template (which is "neutral" to the point of being uninformative); if accusations of WP:BLUDGEON have already appeared, then ping me and I'll post them for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, User:WhatamIdoing. Since I have had a number of accusations made about my actions, which in the spirit of non-confrontation I have largely ignored, if you were able to post the appropriate messages I think it might avoid, at the very least, a lot of hot air. You would no doubt form a quick opinion on whether the two threads are sufficiently related. Sorry to chicken out, but I think it is for the best. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer, User:WhatamIdoing. Since I have had a number of accusations made about my actions, which in the spirit of non-confrontation I have largely ignored, if you were able to post the appropriate messages I think it might avoid, at the very least, a lot of hot air. You would no doubt form a quick opinion on whether the two threads are sufficiently related. Sorry to chicken out, but I think it is for the best. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
RFC request for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation[edit]
Hello,
I started the subject Naming the tragic event in the articles head title on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force a few months ago, and was suggested to start up an RFC. Anyone wants to help me out? Thoughts? Thanks in advance
Sincerely, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome to RFC, Sidney.Cortez. Do you want to start a new/separate discussion, or just bring more people into the existing one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hello WhatamIdoing,
- I don't know honestly. What's most constructive, do you think?
- Thanks, Sidney.Cortez (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Either way works, but I lean very slightly towards a fresh start. Create a regular new section. Add a sensible short question (i.e., not "Why don't we mention this" but something like "Shall we...?" or "Should the title for an aviation disaster...?") at the top.
- The RFC tag goes above your question. For your RFC tag, you should pick one or more relevant article categories from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Categories, plus only the
style
category from among the project-wide ones (because you're asking about a change to article naming conventions, which is a style matter. Specifically, this is not a "policy or guideline" question as far as the RFC categories are concerned). - You don't need to set up subsections or anything like that. If you want to explain in more detail, then add that explanation as a second comment (i.e., after your already-signed first comment, which is the RFC's official question). For example, you might say something about the title Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 being less immediately informative (e.g., to people using search tools) than some other options, such as 2001 shootdown of Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 or Loss of 2001 Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 (or whatever options and explanations you think would be useful).
- After that, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC and leaving a note on the main WikiProject talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft), at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, any articles where you know there's been a recent discussion about this subject, and on whichever other pages you think would be useful. {{Please see}} is an optional template you can use for posting these notes, if you prefer that style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Education about RFC mechanics[edit]
Twice in the last two days I've had to explain to editors that RFC tags are removed after 30 days. They looked at the top of an old discussion or the RFC listing pages, didn't see a tag, and said they believed that meant that it wasn't an RFC after all.
I could wish that we changed the RFC template/bot behavior (to keep the tag and the anchor to show that it was an RFC, but to make it 'inactive' somehow), but in the meantime, I'm wondering whether the FRS bot could include a rotating bit of advice on RFCs, like "You can find all the open RFCs here" or "If the result is unclear, you can request a closing summary" or "Compromises are important" or "RFC tags are automatically removed after a month, but you can shorten or extend this time" or whatever else might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could specify what posts you're talking about and have the courtesy to ping the users that you think need education from you? If one of them is me, I do confess to saying "I don't believe there is an RfC here as I don't see it in Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/All ..." and if I'd searched that page's history I could have found that there "there used to be an RfC here". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: Straight off the top of my head, there is Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Black Irish (folklore)#Differentiating between the real people and the false origin story. I think that BarrelProof understands. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redrose64: Glad you're still around, since I want to quote what you told me in 2020 in talk page thread Requests for closure noticeboard: procedure: "Archived threads are de facto closed by the archiving process. If it was a thread that required some kind of formal decision, it really shouldn't have been left untouched for so long that the archiving bot swooped in." WhatamIDoing is now telling me, and others on the thread, re an RfC that the bot took care of on February 5, that it is not "closed". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that now, but I think it's strange for an RFC to remain open but quietly disappear from the list of of active RFCs. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan and BarrelProof: There are at least two bots involved here, and they have different functions.
- First, there is Legobot (talk · contribs), which handles the RfC listings. When this bot detects that the first valid timestamp following a
{{rfc}}
tag is more than thirty days ago, it removes that{{rfc}}
tag and also removes the corresponding entries from the listing pages. This is not closure, and nor is it archiving: it is delisting, no more and no less. The discussion remains open, but it is not as broadly publicised as it had been. - Second, there are ClueBot III (talk · contribs) and Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which handle archiving of discussion pages. In this context, "to archive" means to cut one or more threads from a discussion page and paste them into a subpage which conventionally includes the word "Archive" in its name. It is this process that I refer to as a de facto closure, since it is not permitted to continue discussions on archive pages. These bots have no means for knowing if a discussion is resolved or not: they look at the time of the most recent activity in the thread, and compare that time against the archive settings at the top of the page. Some pages have archiving settings that mean that a thread might be archived after less than thirty days, and to protect against this, Legobot adds code like
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1714057272}}
just before the{{rfc}}
tag when it adds the|rfcid=
parameter, and leaves that code alone when it removes the{{rfc}}
tag. If you come across code like that at the top of a discussion thread that has no{{rfc}}
tag, that may indicate that the thread did have an{{rfc}}
tag at some point in the past. But the page history should be checked to be sure - the best thing to look for is edits by Legobot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. The only bot changes in the history are by Legobot so it wasn't archived then unarchived, and I can make no joke about RfCs pining for the fjords, assuming this is about me and BarrelProof. As I said earlier, I'm glad you're still around. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is another case where confusion has probably been caused by misuse of terminology. As the terms are defined in the Wikipedia:Requests for Comment, there is no such thing as an RfC being open or closed and you can't close an RfC. You close a discussion or end an RfC. It's normal for an RfC to end while the discussion is still open. Common sense says whoever closes a discussion should end the RfC as well, but they're technically separate events. "Close an RfC" is a slang variously used to mean end an RfC, close an RfC discussion, or both, and it's hard to know which. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter Gulutzan: Straight off the top of my head, there is Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Black Irish (folklore)#Differentiating between the real people and the false origin story. I think that BarrelProof understands. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:RFCBEFORE often ignored[edit]
In my experience, a large number of RFCs are frequently started after no discussion, or extremely minimal discussion. Is there a way to make WP:RFCBEFORE more prominent somehow? Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Some weeks ago I thought of adding a line in big text like Is your RfC really necessary? but didn't do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- A message like that would probably discourage the "wrong" editor. Thinking about the two editors who were running ~10 RFCs years ago, I'm sure that they strongly believed that their RFCs were really necessary. Other editors did not disagree with them; they were invincibly convinced that they were right; therefore, an RFC was necessary to prove that they were right. (The fact that they were frequently not proven right did not change their minds, but it did stop the edit warring.)
- @Aza24, I find that complaints like this are frequently motivated from two places: One is a general, disinterested concern that the people who respond to RFCs are wasting their time by responding to such "obvious" questions. The other is a more specific concern that a particular RFC is going to end up with the "wrong" result, whereas if the rest of the community hadn't been invited to join the conversation, then the "right" answer could have prevailed. (See also the FAQ on people complaining about biased questions.) One of these concerns seems to be more common that the other. Which is yours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. RfC's are helpful--especially when one or a few editors are not following the WP:RS. It's the only decent forum I know of to address a content dispute. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll admit, it was prompted by JK Rowling-related talk page chaos; a discussion was taking place, and then a RFC suddenly appeared on a matter which had not even been discussed. It calls back to numerous times I've witnessed discussions talk place over a day or two, and certainly not concluded or proved stalemated—but an RFC appears anyways. Many times these RFCs are halted before a consensus arrives: a solution to me seems to make it clearer that discussion should take place first. Aza24 (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hot-button articles tend to attract more than their share of RFCs, but I'm not sure that's always a bad thing.
- I'm not sure that changing the instructions would help. Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and reasonable people could disagree about whether a discussion has concluded or reached a stalemate. (For example, I tend to be a bit more optimistic about the chance of reaching a conclusion than many other editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Am I allowed to give my non-neutral opinion on the RfC that I started?[edit]
I started an RfC with a neutral statement. Can I give my opinion on the subject below my first statement and timestamp? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- You may of course make a comment on the RfC; any editor may. It is only the RfC issue summary that must be neutral; it is of course not expected that comments in response to it will be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)