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 00:50, 22 December 2013 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,634 edits →Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie: done← Previous edit Revision as of 20:47, 22 December 2013 edit undoTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,474 edits This is implicit in the existing language, but I'm starting to think that it needs to be spelled out.Next edit →
Line 23: Line 23:
<noinclude>The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] 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. <noinclude>The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] 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 '''{{#time:j|-30 days}} {{#time:F|-30 days}} {{#time:Y|-30 days}}'''); 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 '''{{#time:j|-7 days}} {{#time:F|-7 days}} {{#time:Y|-7 days}}''') except in the case of ]. Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure''', and consequently do not need to be listed here. 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 '''{{#time:j|-30 days}} {{#time:F|-30 days}} {{#time:Y|-30 days}}'''); 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 '''{{#time:j|-7 days}} {{#time:F|-7 days}} {{#time:Y|-7 days}}''') except in the case of ].


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 ] at ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See ] for previous closure reviews. 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 ] at ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See ] for previous closure reviews.

Revision as of 20:47, 22 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

    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

    This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Shortcuts

    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, and consequently do not need to be listed here. 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 discussions

    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:

    1. 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)
    2. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    3. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    4. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
       Closed by ‎Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    5. 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: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:

    1. Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
    2. Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
    3. 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:Edward Snowden#added videos

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward Snowden#added videos (initiated 16 October 2013; see the subsection at Talk:Edward Snowden#RfC: Should the links to the four Sam Adams Award videos be deleted?). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey (initiated 1 December 2013)? See the subsection Talk:United States#Survey. WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates (initiated 7 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables" (initiated 9 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included? (initiated 28 October 2013)? Please see the 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC) comment by 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs) at the bottom of the discussion: "...I suggest we bring in somebody uninvolved to close out the RfC, and determine if we have enough of a consensus, or not." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (initiated 18 October 2013)? Please consider the previous RfCs Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 in your closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Merger proposal

    Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus and close this merge discussion? Thanks,--Cúchullain /c 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 25#Category:Rape_victims

    Please can an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 25#Category:Rape_victims?
    It has been opened for nearly 2 months, and discussion is now sporadic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Torpedo_bombers

    Discussion stalled since 18 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#Category:Royal_lovers

    Discussion stalled since 8 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 22

    There are a bunch of uncontroversial closes to be made in this month-old batch of categories. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

    Now only Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_22#Category:Horse_burials needs closure from this page. Armbrust 10:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure? (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Edinburgh#RfC: Content of the Lead

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edinburgh#RfC: Content of the Lead (initiated 18 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

    There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#RFC: Must every item listed in this comparison article have a Misplaced Pages article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#RFC: Must every item listed in this comparison article have a Misplaced Pages article? (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article? (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Misplaced Pages viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote:

    This RfC after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-based removal, a claim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I request) ...

    An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ELNO-based removal). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2013#Request to switch to Module:Convert

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2013#Request to switch to Module:Convert (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose we should migrate convert to use the module Module:Convert now, as it seems it's ready for prime time now. I understand this is a big switch, so please decide wisely." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources) (initiated 15 December 2013)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain (initiated 16 December 2013)? The last post was 19 December 2013. An uninvolved admin wrote:

    Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue!

    The opening poster has not repopulated the categories. Admin guidance would be helpful in determining whether the opening poster is allowed to undo the out-of-process category renaming based on the discussion's consensus which would prevent the opening poster from being accused of edit warring. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Swdandap malfeasance

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Swdandap malfeasance (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

     Done Armbrust 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED" (initiated 8 December 2013)? A participant wrote:

    Would an uninvolved admin be able to close this discussion? StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mafh01/sandbox/lunch box

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mafh01/sandbox/lunch box (initiated 2 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox2 and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox3

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox2 and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:WhatGuy/Sandbox3 (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rough consensus (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers (initiated 23 November 2013)? The last comment was on 16 December 2013. The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:List of_dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela#Proposed merge with List of dignitaries at the state funeral of Nelson Mandela

    Can someone please close this discussion as consensus has been attained. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law (initiated 3 September 2013)? At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC, the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC is restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)