Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:16, 18 April 2013 editFlatscan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers6,158 edits →Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD: archived to WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD← Previous edit Revision as of 15:29, 18 April 2013 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits archived oldNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
===Article namespace=== ===Article namespace===
<!--If the section becomes empty, then add "* None currently."--> <!--If the section becomes empty, then add "* None currently."-->

====] and ]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 October 2012 and a subsection of which is ]) and ] (initiated 15 November 2012). I have not read the two discussions, though both may be related to the same issue and should likely be considered by the same closer. Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:{{comment}} First discussion is now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 13 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Discussion now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 January 2013)? The RfC tag was removed, and tempers seem to be running high; see ]. Feel free to move this to the premature requests section if a close at this time would be premature. ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 December 2012)? There is disagreement over whether iTunes is an acceptable source to use for the song's release date? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:I commented there, but it still needs another pair of eyes and hands. ] (]) 05:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by ], probably a political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and ]. The consensus is clear. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 06:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

====From Proposed Mergers noticeboard====
Copied here by ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 20:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC) without comment:

A merge request between ] and ] was proposed, without the normal procedure being followed. Several editors have opposed or commented on the proposed merge. I have closed the discussion as nothing has been added to it for several weeks. Please can an '''experienced administrator''' help reach a consensus? ] (]) 09:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
:*Link to discussion: ]. ] (]) 00:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
There is even consesus on closure.&nbsp;— አቤል ዳዊት<sup>]</sup>] (]) 01:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close the discussion at ] per ? Thanks. -- ] (]) 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 December 2012). Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 18:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 January 2013). Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 February 2013)? The question posed was: "There are two questions here. (1) Should the categories that are currently in the article (Category:Anglican saints, Category:Renewers of the church) be retained? (2) Should this information be presented in the article (which it currently isn't)?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Can the 2009 libel lawsuit against Diamond be mentioned in the article without violating the ] policy? If so, how much detail should be included?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 February 2013)? See also the close request at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 February 2013)? The discussion is about to the article. ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 December 2012)? The questions posed were:
# What is the preferred location for the Controversy section?
# Is the current controversy section neutral? If not, how can it be improved?
Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 January 2013)?<p>Please also consider the RfC closure of ], which was mentioned in the "Weight and treatment of controversial incidents" RfC.<p>The question posed was: "Should controversial incidents at individual chapters of an organization with over 200 local chapters be included while the article is so short?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 February 2013)? The question posed was: "
Is the Destination Map and the Image of the Airport (], ]) not per ] and should be removed?" Please note: The images linked in the opening post are red links, but I cannot find entries in the deletion log for them. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 January 2013)? Please see also ]. There are also two other RfCs on the page ] and ]. "Request for comment III" is ongoing, but I do not know how these two RfCs will factor into closing the first one. ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 23 February 2013)? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 12 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 February 2013)? The RfC discusses merging (among other topics); see the 17:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC) comment by {{user|BoogaLouie}} who said "I'm a randomly-selected-to-comment editor". ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:Look in the talk page archive at . ] (]) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 February 2013)? One commenter wrote on 12 February 2013 "I guess it's up to an uninvolved editor to close the RfC". Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 January 2013 )? The opening poster wrote: "Recently, the repeated claims that glas is a 'highly-viscous liquid' have been inserted in the article. Is this claim justified, per a consensus of the sources cited in the article and the discussion above?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 January 2013)? The questions posed were: "Is there value in listing every reliably sourced cloud service in the introduction on this page? If so, should we require sources for new additions?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 February 2013)? The opening poster wrote:<blockquote>We have this section tagged, and still the unresolved RfC about what good science says regarding cannabis and its effects on the heart remains. Can we bring this to a closure?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Is tau notable enough for an article in mainspace under any name? If yes, a second RFC will determine the name to be used." Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 February 2013)? The discussion is about the merging of ] into ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]; see the subsection ] (initiated 6 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 January 2013)? There is disagreement over whether the band Kyuss should be classified as an alternative metal. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 February 2013)? The question posed was: "Is it appropriate to use this source '' {{cite web|title=Invisible Children's "Kony 2012" viral video stirs emotion and controversy|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57393346-501465/invisible-childrens-kony-2012-viral-video-stirs-emotion-and-controversy/|publisher=CBS News|date=8 March 2012}}'' to describe the film Kony 2012 as " controversial" in Misplaced Pages's voice in this article?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 February 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>i am requesting comments of whether the Mario Kart article's Characters section should keep the all-inclusive but very large table it currently has, or use a ] separated in three sections: recurrent characters (who appear in all games, except for two characters absent from the ''Super'' game and one of these unconfirmed to appear in ''Arcade GP DX''), console-only characters (only found in some, but not all, console games) and arcade-only characters.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 January 2013)? The question posed was: "Do you support describing all nine people convicted as part of the sex gang?" Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at:
#] (initiated 22 January 2013)
#] (initiated 22 February 2013)
Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)\\

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 February 2013 (UTC))? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (see ]; initiated 20 February 2013). Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 December 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I believe that the content on the Pontifical Swiss Guard deserves to be a separate article." Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 September 2012)? Please also consider the related discussion ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Line 242: Line 56:


Could someone please close this discussion&nbsp;— it has been running for a month and is completely deadlocked with no chance of consensus. ] (]) 21:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Could someone please close this discussion&nbsp;— it has been running for a month and is completely deadlocked with no chance of consensus. ] (]) 21:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Requesting a review of the closure and the level of consensus determined. Inconsistencies with the closing statement are detailed at ]. Spoke to the closing user on ], but didn't get much of a response. ] (]) 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} ] happens ], not on the talk page. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 03:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
:::What talk page? The user's talk page? Your link suggests otherwise. And this is transcluded at the top of ]. As the closing user {{dif|529467177|suggested}}, I posted here. You know, it's been about a month now anyway. I think I'll just chalk this one up as a botched NAC and walk away. ] (]) 06:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
::::Start a new thread on ] called something like "Closure review of Simple English proposal at Village Pump". Provide a link to the previous discussion (which is in the archive now), and a neutrally worded assessment of why you think the closure was incorrect. Administrators, not the original participants, need to be able to look it over and comment on whether the closure should be changed. A review needs to happen ''at'' ], not where the original RfC was posted (ie, the talk page mentioned above). Is that clear? PS, I had completely forgotten that this board gets transcluded to the top of WP:AN when we get backlogged. ]]<sub><small>] ]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">]</sup> 23:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 September 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
:The discussion is now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
:I think this is pretty stale. I was involved in the RFC so can't close it, but we appear to have reached a general agreement on most of the issues raised. ]&nbsp;] 20:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 17 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in ] so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like ]." Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': this is now at ]. ]] (]) 20:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 October 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Line 288: Line 65:
::—] (]) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC) ::—] (]) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*I second this request for a closing.&nbsp; Are the technical people still working on this?&nbsp; This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion.&nbsp; It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation.&nbsp; ] (]) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC) *I second this request for a closing.&nbsp; Are the technical people still working on this?&nbsp; This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion.&nbsp; It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation.&nbsp; ] (]) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 November 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:The Core Contest is open; no need to close the preliminary RFC. ] (]) 03:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an administrator assess the consensus at ]?<p>If there is a consensus for an editing restriction, please log it at ].<p>Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the main page. Thanks, ] (]) 02:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

====]====
It was moved to this location from AN because inactivity had led to repeated archiving. Seems the discussion has largely ceased and should be resolved with some finding of consensus.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 18:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
:Worth noting that there were quite a few comments after the first archival. Close if you must, but I, biased as I am, think it'd be a shame to give up just yet on all the well-thought-out support rationales we've seen so far. (Unless the reviewing admin thinks the support votes win out, in which case I'm all for closure.{{;)}})'''&nbsp;—&nbsp;<u>]]</u>'''] 06:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an administrator or an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated early January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 13:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

====]====
RfC open since November 2009. A recent MfD closed as "Wrong venue" is also relevant: ]. Underlying question is whether cover versions of songs ever deserve their own articles. Secondary issue is whether the Wikproject section ] should be moved to ], since it looks like the Wikiproject guideline is being observed with the force of content policy. Redirects ] and ] will also need to be tidied up. --] (]) 04:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
:UPDATE: recent discussion ] found consensus to add a line to ] to indicate that normally separate renditions are all merged into a single article about the song. That probably trumps everything that has gone before. --] (]) 05:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
A request was made for neutral editors to provide an opinion on ''two sentences'' of text in ]. As assessment of the text and a recommendation for altering it has been given. Interpersonal conflicts that started elsewhere are now clogging the forum and further progress on this is unlikely to be made at this time. Thanks! ] (]) 02:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Line 321: Line 71:
====]==== ====]====
Discussion started more than a month ago with no contributions for over two weeks. I'm involved, but someone should put it out of its misery. ] (]) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Discussion started more than a month ago with no contributions for over two weeks. I'm involved, but someone should put it out of its misery. ] (]) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 5 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 20 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Line 332: Line 76:


Without noticing this section, I posted a comment below (at 08:53, 23 March 2013) which I now fold into this section: "Could an uninvolved administrator close ]? It's more than a month old. It's also—fair warning—really long." I see that an admin has now review the RFC. Thanks! ] (]) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Without noticing this section, I posted a comment below (at 08:53, 23 March 2013) which I now fold into this section: "Could an uninvolved administrator close ]? It's more than a month old. It's also—fair warning—really long." I see that an admin has now review the RFC. Thanks! ] (]) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 January 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>'''Propose:''' that ] be changed for articles about people for whom there are both an Anglicized(i.e. Bastardized) and Native pronunciation of a PERSON'S NAME (also applies to ]); that the Native IPA be the only pronunciation given in the lead and all other pronunciations starting with the Anglicized be listed in a footnote attached to the Native IPA. Or at least that the native IPA be listed first.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:I'll take care of this. ] (]) 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 March 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 January 2013)? The question posed was: "Should we have a time limit for relisting debates (especially ones that have not closed yet." Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 February 2013)? There have eben no comments for two weeks; the essay ] may be relevant. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:But there's now further opposition, so it'll perhaps depend whether there's silence regarding that too! Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 09:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]) 03:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 January 2013)? The subsection at ] is strongly supported. Please mention https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44759 in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 January 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Line 405: Line 98:
===Other namespaces=== ===Other namespaces===
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."--> <!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 January 2013)? The discussion is about the removal of the "Associated acts" parameter. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 February 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>There are two issues that appear to need more discussion:<br><br>1. Should this be an edit-notice for company articles or a Talk page template?<p>2. Should it be added to all company articles or just those that show problematic COI behavior?<p>3. Amendment: Should it be added to the Talk page AND as an editnotice?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 February 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
:{{Done}} ] (]) 18:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 July 2012)?<p>After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 December 2012)?<p>After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 November 2012)? The discussion was enclosed in archive templates but was not summarized.<p>After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====
Line 443: Line 111:
===Premature close requests=== ===Premature close requests===
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."--> <!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->

====]====
:<small>Moved from AN. ] (]) 12:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)</small>

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could close and summarise the discussion at ]. ] (]) 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
:This has ongoing discussion. Move to premature requests? -] (]) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
<noinclude>

====Thank you to closers====
Thank you, {{user|Laurascudder}}, {{user|Vanisaac}}, {{user|Salvidrim}}, {{user|Drmies}}, {{user|Nathan Johnson}}, {{user|Trevj}}, {{user|Philosopher}}, {{user|Beeblebrox}}, {{user|Plastikspork}}, {{user|Joe Decker}}, {{user|DeltaQuad}}, {{user|Hahc21}}, {{user|BrownHairedGirl}}, {{user|Jenks24}}, {{user|MSGJ}}, {{user|Black Kite}}, {{user|Geni}}, {{user|Fayenatic london}}, {{user|Salix}}, {{user|Ruslik0}}, {{user|Mike Selinker}}, and {{user|Mark Arsten}}. I am very grateful to you for taking the time to review the close requests and close the discussions. ] (]) 05:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


<!-- Page footers --> <!-- Page footers -->

Revision as of 15:29, 18 April 2013

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
    Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
    Shortcuts

    Archives
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need formal closure.

    The RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review discussed how to appeal RfC closures and whether an administrator should summarily overturn a non-administrator's RfC closure.


    Please post new requests at the end of the appropriate section(s).

    Requests for closure

    Article namespace

    Talk:Death of Reeva Steenkamp

    The consensus has already reached. --George Ho (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Adamsville (Atlanta)#Proposed move

    This RM about moving Atlanta neighborhoods to comma disambiguation, rather than parenthetical, seems to have narrow support. Discussion has been complicated by a few of the neighborhoods having other issues involved. Either way, the RM has run for over a month, and it's been almost a week since anyone commented there. I think it's time for a close. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Ahmed_Ziauddin#Merger_proposal

    We would appreciate it if someone could please make a decision about this merger.Crtew (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RfC_on_other_Comments_Section

    Issues of WP:SYN and WP:OR have been highly controversial in this article. I am requesting closure for that reason, even though I think consensus is rather clear.Casprings (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Hindutva#Merger proposal

    The merger proposal has become obsolete, as one of the articles has been deleted after an AfD discussion. Still, someone uninvolved should formally close it, as the issue is a bit politically/ethno/religiously loaded. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages namespace

    Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items#Proposal: Decommission ITN/R

    Last comment was c. one week ago, and was a question on whether the discussion should be closed. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons

    A two part discussion on flag use in sports related articles found here and here. 88.88.165.222 (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs#More moderate proposal - limit number of Gibraltar-related DYKs per month

    Could someone please close this discussion — it has been running for a month and is completely deadlocked with no chance of consensus. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

    Archived to WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    That link has been archived, is it now too late to close it? See also:
    —Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I second this request for a closing.  Are the technical people still working on this?  This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion.  It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#the God of Israel or the god of Israel

    This discussion has been dormant for over a month. Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus in the discussion? StAnselm (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2013 February#riksdag

    Discussion started more than a month ago with no contributions for over two weeks. I'm involved, but someone should put it out of its misery. Favonian (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918? (initiated 20 March 2013)? Please see also Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#Closure, where an editor said he asked at Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

    Without noticing this section, I posted a comment below (at 08:53, 23 March 2013) which I now fold into this section: "Could an uninvolved administrator close this RFC? It's more than a month old. It's also—fair warning—really long." I see that an admin has now review the RFC. Thanks! -sche (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship#RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA)

    This was recently archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 222. I've restored it because the discussion wasn't closed. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

    Various MfDs

    Can these be closed as keep per consensus and moved to a subpage of Misplaced Pages:April fools/April Fools' Day 2013? FrigidNinja 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:2012 Braves Cardinals Wild Card Game Debris.jpg

    Can someone assess the discussion and make an appropriate closing decision? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#User G-Zay and BLP concerns

    Can an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#User G-Zay and BLP concerns? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

    Other namespaces

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 16#Template:Rozz Williams

    now open for over three weeks. Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

    User:Jmh649/Will Beback

    It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor would close this informal RfC (opened 23 March) regarding whether Will Beback's indefinite ban should be lifted. The arbitration committee imposed the ban in February 2012, and last month rejected Will's appeal against it. The issue may proceed to a formal request to the committee, so it would be helpful to have a summary of the RfC's consensus on the various issues. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

    I read part of the page with a thought toward closing it, but what's the point? The discussion has already moved on to so closing the RFC in the userspace page will not help. Chutznik (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    As I said, there might be a formal approach to the arbcom, so it would help if someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, BASC, or any of the individual arbs, would close and sum up the RfC. SlimVirgin 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    Premature close requests

    Category: