| Revision as of 19:52, 2 December 2013 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm →Requests for closure: combining← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:03, 2 December 2013 edit undoArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,628 edits Reverted to revision 584244458 by Armbrust (talk): Unarchive, IMO they need closure and combining them isn't necessary. (Twinkle)Next edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | :'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection ] (among other proposals). Thanks, ] (]) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 October 2013)? See ] and the request for closure at ].<p>Also, there are two sections titled "Matthew Bryden" at ]. I have not removed either of them because I'm unsure which one has the more up-to-date material. Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 87: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) | Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 November 2013)? There appears to be unanimous support for a topic ban at ], but the discussion was archived without the consensus being assessed. Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Line 92: | Line 102: | ||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Activity involved in this incident ended on Tuesday, November 19th and conversation on that continues on ] involves the rationale for and against these content changes. Discussion should be moved to Talk Pages. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC) | Activity involved in this incident ended on Tuesday, November 19th and conversation on that continues on ] involves the rationale for and against these content changes. Discussion should be moved to Talk Pages. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===] and ]=== | |||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation: | |||
| :#] (initiated 24 August 2013) | |||
| :#] (initiated 22 October 2013) | |||
| :#] (initiated 22 October 2013) | |||
| My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (], ], and ]) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute ]. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).<p>The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 102: | Line 119: | ||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Related RfCs were closed by {{user|Mdann52}} at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Related RfCs were closed by {{user|Mdann52}} at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at: | |||
| *] | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
Revision as of 20:03, 2 December 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 | |
The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.
Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 25 November 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 18 December 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.
Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
- Notes about closing
Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.
A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.
Requests for closure
See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussionsMisplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?
This RfC was started on September 6h. The tag for this RfC seems to have been deleted. Can an admin please close? Thanks. GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?. Armbrust 10:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign. Armbrust 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress (among other proposals). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress and the request for closure at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden.
Also, there are two sections titled "Matthew Bryden" at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817. I have not removed either of them because I'm unsure which one has the more up-to-date material. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2013 October
There are two MRVs from October where discussion has gone fairly stale, and they're likely ready for closes. I'm afraid they won't be easy closes, or someone else would've done them already! --BDD (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've closed one, Ragamuffin War. This still leaves Native American boarding schools. I can't close that one as I participated.--Cúchullain /c 15:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Template talk:non-free review#RfC: Should the non-free review template be added to articles?
The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The discussion was opened on October 25 and there has been no discussion since November 9. The RfC question is (posed by User:SlimVirgin): should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCR open discussions
We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg
Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
- Closed by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information (initiated 17 October 2013)? Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 4#RFC - Primary and secondary sources for wind information. Armbrust 06:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else? (initiated 29 October 2013)? The most recent comment was 12 November 2013. Before that, there had been no comments since 1 November 2013. Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Ghouta chemical attack/Archive 5#RfC: Should this Russian claim be in the Background or capabilities sections or somewhere else?. Armbrust 06:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd (initiated 16 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:
Do the Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd articles constitute a POV fork, should they be merged, and if they should be merged, under what breed name should they be merged - the original name (Mini Aussie) or the American Kennel Club-recognized name (Mini American)?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted? (initiated 7 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope? (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#User:ProudIrishAspie and Infobox flags (initiated 3 November 2013)? There appears to be unanimous support for a topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Topic ban for ProudIrishAspie, but the discussion was archived without the consensus being assessed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 5#Template:WLeague NUJ
Open for over four weeks including relisting. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#WikiAfrica subpages
Open for several weeks. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Request to revert move of Galicia (Eastern Europe)
Activity involved in this incident ended on Tuesday, November 19th and conversation on that continues on WP:AN involves the rationale for and against these content changes. Discussion should be moved to Talk Pages. Liz 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:
- Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
- Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
- Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)
My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).
The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Jews/infobox#English as the predominant language
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jews/infobox#English as the predominant language (initiated 11 October 2013; see Talk:Jews/infobox#Request for comment)? The question posed was: "If English has become the most commonly spoken tongue among Jews and the primary language of communication between Jews of different countries today, can it be referred to as their lingua franca?" Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals (initiated 24 October 2013)? Related RfCs were closed by Mdann52 (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Misplaced Pages talk:No paid advocacy#RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NewOrleansAthleticClub/sandbox
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:NewOrleansAthleticClub/sandbox (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde (2nd nomination)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:L'Origine du monde (2nd nomination) (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups (initiated 14 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC
If an early close would be beneficial, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC (initiated 8 November 2013)? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Anime and Manga RfC - Update, request for closure and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC#Statement by Sven Manguard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Collapsing music track lists
Please close Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Collapsing music track lists, which has been dormant for more than one month, and has since been moved. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Peter Sellers#Request for Comment: Use of term "Jewish" to describe conman character
After a long and arduous discussion, we really need a third party admin to asses consensus here. Thank you.--Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)