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 03:38, 17 February 2015 editRobert McClenon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers197,088 edits →Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?: done← Previous edit Revision as of 06:54, 17 February 2015 edit undoK7L (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,362 editsm →Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper ScriptNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 220: Line 220:
:You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. ] (]) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC) :You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. ] (]) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. ] (]) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}} ] (]) 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC) ::Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. ] (]) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)}} ] (]) 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I see that an ''involved party'' (namely, the user making the original proposal) has ''taken it upon himself'' to close the RfC even though he is *not* ], the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? ] (]) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===

Revision as of 06:54, 17 February 2015

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 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot 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.

    Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

    Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for closure is 30 days (opened on or before 24 November 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

    If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

    Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree 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.

    Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

    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.

    Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

    Requests for closure

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves § Backlog, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

    I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act (Initiated 3682 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name"

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion backlog

    Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:

    Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#Proposed_technical change: show pages expanded from redirects on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed

    Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article? (Initiated 3655 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? (Initiated 3672 days ago on 5 December 2014) and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article? (Initiated 3672 days ago on 5 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

     Done Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course (Initiated 3666 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities (Initiated 3669 days ago on 8 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (Initiated 3675 days ago on 2 December 2014)? The "Media coverage" section is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent? (Initiated 3658 days ago on 19 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ? (Initiated 3656 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh (Initiated 3676 days ago on 1 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages (Initiated 3662 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8

    Seven discussions still open. Erpert 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Duplicate summaries from other pages RFC

    It was archived. The RfC is still relevant to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division

    Discussion has been ongoing for two months and it's only been getting more heated. No sign of consensus for merging in sight. (Initiated 3669 days ago on 8 December 2014) Alakzi (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Kurds#RFC: Regarding Kurds/Iran

    Could an experienced editor, preferably an admin, close this RFC (Initiated 3648 days ago on 29 December 2014). It concerns whether there should be references in the lead to the Kurds being an "Iranian people". It's a highly contentious topic that is prone to drive-by edit-warring. A proposal to resolve the issue was made in the following thread and discussion now seems to come to an end. But the drive-by edit warring continues. It would be good to see if we have a long-term solution out of the RFC, backed by an experienced editor's assessment. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30

    Would an experienced editor or an admin please close these TfD discussions? It seems like there's a backlog of TfDs to be closed. Thanks in advance!

    - tucoxn\ 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Newport Beach, California#RfC: Should links to articles about church buildings in Newport Beach be included in the 'See also' (or, alternatively, 'Points of interest') section?

    Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this RfC that I initiated. Most were "no", although Nyttend voted no but stated the temple should be included. I would appreciate someone reviewing the arguments and close the RfC. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 5#Swami Ji Shri 1008 Shree Ram Kishor Ji Maharaj? (Initiated 3651 days ago on 26 December 2014) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey#Lead image for the page

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey#Lead image for the page (Initiated 3642 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Manhattan#Photo feedback requested

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Manhattan#Photo feedback requested (Initiated 3642 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups (Initiated 3651 days ago on 26 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#Request for comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#Request for comment (Initiated 3642 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: VEVO channels in "by subscribers" section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: VEVO channels in "by subscribers" section (Initiated 3642 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy keep#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy keep#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? (Initiated 3650 days ago on 27 December 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Revisiting past proposal – Viewdelete userright

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Revisiting past proposal – Viewdelete userright (Initiated 3642 days ago on 4 January 2015)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences

    This is a discussion on a topic that has, in the past, proved so controversial that general sanctions are in force. For that reason, and because of the general sanctions, it would be very useful for us to actually have an external editor judge whether consensus has been reached or not - as opposed to the discussion just being removed mysteriously from the page with no explanation given beyond an edit summary claiming that no admin is needed. The risk at present is that people might act on a consensus that they believe might exist in this discussion, only to be sanctioned under the general sanctions if admins at WP:AN disagree. It may be that no admin is formally needed to close the discussion - any uninvolved editor can close the discussion after all - but it would be entirely false to say that a close would serve no purpose or is not needed. It really is.

    So would an uninvolved editor please close the discussion. If you feel the point is obvious, then great! In that case, please close it with a statement of the obvious. But it does need to be closed. Kahastok talk 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    As the initiator of the discussion in question, I concur with the need for an uninvolved editor or admin to review the discussion and determine whether a consensus has indeed been reached. The whole purpose of this discussion, as Kahastok touched upon, was to determine a consensus for the use of metric vs. imperial units in the infobox of various personnel in association football. Without getting into too much detail here, the desire is to have a WikiProject-wide guideline for the use of height and weight units and how they would be inserted without the need for a discussion on every article which might be UK related as presently required by WP:GS/UKU. The need for an uninvolved editor or admin is to avoid any appearance of the process being railroaded by a few editors. — Jkudlick cs 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Blues guitar playing

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Blues guitar playing? (Initiated 3639 days ago on 7 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (Caliphate)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (Caliphate)? (Initiated 3641 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (organization)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 14#Islamic State (organization)? (Initiated 3641 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#The Islamic State (Caliphate)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#The Islamic State (Caliphate)? (Initiated 3641 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Blackbird (song)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 15#Blackbird (song)? (Initiated 3641 days ago on 5 January 2015) Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

    Long-overdue requested moves

    I have closed all the outstanding RM moves from December, except these three in which I participated. Hopefully the outcome in all three is fairly clear anyway:

    Number 57 16:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC: linking pre- and post-nominals

    This RfC has only been going on for three weeks, but the discussion has well and truly ended, with no contribution for more than a week. (Also, it's a continuation of a previous discussion, and so the issue has been dragging on a long time.) I thought the consensus was clear to exclude the text under discussion, but I checked with the lone "include" !voter and he or she didn't think so. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

    states : This RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges. It is recommended that this RfC be closed by an Admin - one who has no previous involvement in the AfC process. This RfC for an emergency measure has run for 11 days and participation has tailed off; a consensus appears to have been reached so would an uninvolved admin please consider closing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    From here at WP:AN:

    Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    Cunard (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    I see that an involved party (namely, the user making the original proposal) has taken it upon himself to close the RfC even though he is *not* uninvolved, the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? K7L (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages

    I started this discussion, and I was expecting an automatic closure because I didn't know how the system worked. It was automatically archived. Is it too late? − Thisismyrofl (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her (Initiated 3622 days ago on 24 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting review of close of RfC at Griffin article (Initiated 3611 days ago on 4 February 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of closure at AN/I

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for review of closure at AN/I (Initiated 3607 days ago on 8 February 2015)? A discussion participant wrote: "Since there appears to be no agreement between myself and involved admins, I would like to request closure by an uninvolved admin." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_policy_extend_harassment_to_include_posting_ANY_other_accounts_on_ANY_other_websites

    RFC finished a while back and nobody's commented for around a week. Can an admin please assess consensus and close? Bosstopher (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment

    Would an an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment after February 16 at 00:16 UTC. (Initiated 3600 days ago on 15 February 2015) Note that the discussion is over 40,000 words. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Islamic calendar#Request for comment

    Experienced editor, preferably an admin, needed to close trainwreck of a RFC involving a Muhammad image. (Initiated 3636 days ago on 10 January 2015) --NeilN 16:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Action_needed_here.3B_proposal

    Will an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus (if any) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Action_needed_here.3B_proposal and close the thread. (Initiated 3613 days ago on 2 February 2015) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Category: