Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:27, 14 June 2013 editGeorge Ho (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users118,136 edits →Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV: oops← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:48, 30 December 2024 edit undoPppery (talk \| contribs)Interface administrators, Administrators100,422 edits →Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters: Done
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{no admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{noticeboard links \| style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; \| titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; \| groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}<!--
			<!--

	-----------------------------------~~----------------------~~-		-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	New entries go down at the BOTTOM ~~of the corresponding section~~ of this page and not here.		New entries go down at the BOTTOM of this page and not up here.
	-----------------------------------~~----------------------~~-		-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
			-->
	--></noinclude>
			{{redirect\|WP:CR\|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
	<includeonly>{{TOC limit\|3}}</includeonly>
			{{redirect\|WP:ANC\|text=You may be looking for ]}}
	<noinclude>
			{{Noticeboard links \| style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; \| titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; \| groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			]
	\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
			{{Archive basics
	\| algo = old(40d)
	\| archive = Misplaced Pages:~~Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for~~ ~~closure~~/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
	\| counter = 7		\|counter = 37
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
	\| maxarchivesize = 500K
			\|maxsize = 256000
	\| archiveheader =
	\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\| minthreadsleft = 0
	}}		}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	{{archives\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot II\|age=40}}
			\|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
			\|format= %%i
			\|age=4368
			\|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{notdone,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{tick,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
			\|header={{Aan}}
			\|headerlevel=3
			\|maxarchsize=256000
			\|minkeepthreads=0
			\|numberstart=16
			}}{{Archives\|auto=short\|search=yes\|bot=ClueBot III}}
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CR\|WP:RFCL\|WP:ANRFC}}

			<section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).

			] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''

			Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, ] to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

			] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''

			On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. '''Do not continue the discussion here'''.

			There is no fixed length for a formal ] (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

			] '''When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure'''.

			Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{tl\|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

			Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if ]. You should be familiar with all ] that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the ] page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

			'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
			{{cot\|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
			Please append {{tlx\|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx\|Close}} or {{tlx\|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx\|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx\|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx\|Initiated}} template with {{para\|done\|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx\|Already done}}, {{tlx\|Close}}, {{tlx\|Done}} {{tlx\|Not done}}, and {{tlx\|Resolved}}.
			{{cob}}
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

			<section end=Instructions/>
			{{TOC limit\|4}}
			]

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
			<!--
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself!  Let a bot do it.  Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->

			=== ]===
	{{shortcut\|WP:ANRFC\|WP:AN/RFC}}
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	</noinclude>
			=== ] ===
	<includeonly>
			{{initiated\|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Requests for closure==
			===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
	:''This section is ] from ].''</includeonly>
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	<noinclude>The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need formal closure.

			== Requests for comment ==
	A ] discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator should summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, the process to appeal is to start a new thread at the ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason why you think the closure should be overturned.
			<!--
			Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
	<center>'''Please post new requests at the ''end'' of the appropriate section(s).'''</center>
			-->
	{{TOC limit\|3}}

	==Requests for ~~closure~~==		=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	</noinclude>

			===] ===
	===]===
			{{Initiated\|11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	WP:RM is designed to have all requested moves either relisted or closed before reaching the backlog. See ] for closing instructions. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:17, 23 May 2013‎ UTC</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	<noinclude>
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
	<timeline>
	ImageSize = width:420 height:240
	PlotArea = width:350 height:150 left:40 bottom:40
	AlignBars = late

			=== ] ===
	DateFormat = x.y
			{{Initiated\|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Period = from:0 till:130
	TimeAxis = orientation:vertical
	ScaleMajor = unit:month increment:20 start:0

			===]===
	TextData =
			{{Initiated\|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	pos:(200,25) textcolor:black fontsize:S
			Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. ] (]) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	text:Day
	pos:(140,225) textcolor:black fontsize:M
	text:RM Backlog for May 2013

			:Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	Colors =
			:{{Doing}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	id:blue value:red
			::{{yo\|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ] <sub>]</sub> 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — ] <sub>]</sub> 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. ] (]) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{doing}} ] (]) 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	PlotData=
			{{initiated\|19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	width:10 textcolor:black shift:(-10,70)
	bar: 1 color:red from:0 till: 20
	bar: 2 color:red from:0 till: 30
	bar: 3 color:red from:0 till: 20
	bar: 4 color:red from:0 till: 23
	bar: 5 color:red from:0 till: 29
	bar: 6 color:red from:0 till: 36
	bar: 7 color:red from:0 till: 45
	bar: 8 color:red from:0 till: 61
	bar: 9 color:red from:0 till: 68
	bar: 10 color:red from:0 till: 69
	bar: 11 color:red from:0 till: 62
	bar: 12 color:red from:0 till: 32
	bar: 13 color:red from:0 till: 33
	bar: 14 color:red from:0 till: 25
	bar: 15 color:red from:0 till: 35
	bar: 16 color:red from:0 till: 43
	bar: 17 color:red from:0 till: 55
	bar: 18 color:red from:0 till: 71
	bar: 19 color:red from:0 till: 70
	bar: 20 color:red from:0 till: 78
	bar: 21 color:red from:0 till: 93
	bar: 22 color:red from:0 till: 122
	bar: 23 color:red from:0 till: 124
	</timeline>
	</noinclude>
	:I did a few. Pretty unsatisfying work, which is probably why there's a backlog... -] (]) 16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
	::I have never done these, because the formal procedure is unreasonably complicated. If someone made a script, like for closing AfDs, then I would--but it would still leave the history merge problem which I doubt can be automated. I will not to history merges, because the few Idid , I got it wrong about half the time. Perhaps we could find a better way. ''']''' (]) 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

			:Now ]. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — ] <sub>]</sub> 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	:<s>Nathan Johnson's closure is contested at ]. If you're Nathan, watch out if you want to< evaluate less-than-easy discussions <u>and then briefly explain without adequate rationale</u>. Otherwise, if you are another non-administrator, there are more in backlogs, but go for easiest first. I recommend that an administrator can evaluate more challenging discussions if well-experienced. --] (]) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)</s>
	:: Since Dennis Brown makes sure that Nathan would know what he is going to do in regards to requested moves, I guess that I should not discriminate admins and non-admins. Actually, I will be careful of experiences. Still, Nathan swears that he'll make rationales next time. Back to this request, more experienced editor is needed. --] (]) 20:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	:I've done a few and have to agree that it is quite draining to read all the discussion on what is often a quite trivial point. To DGG, most of these do not require a hsitmerge so you should be able to close them succesfully without fear of error. ''']]''' 15:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	This RFC/U was opened a month ago, so I am requesting an uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus and close it. ] (]) 21:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I ~~second~~ ~~this~~ ~~request~~. ] (]) ~~16:~~14, 1 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at ], where it is clear that there is no consensus for change. On a purely proactical level, there is a section of the talk thread (]) which is still active and does not relate directly to the infobox argument, or at least contains a discussion which has moved past the infobox and deals only with the content of the article. I suspect this should be left open for further discussion. Many thanks. - ] (]) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Objection''' A number of editors, on both sides of the discussion, have posted in the last 12 hours; the discussion is not over and this is an attempt by an involved editor to stifle debate. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 14:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	::There is one principal, strongly committed, dissentient voice from the consensus, and I see no prospect of a change to the consensus. After more than 8,500 words on this matter I think the discussion on adding an info-box has run its course, and perpetuation is verging on the vexatious. ] (]) 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::...two involved editors attempting to stifle debate. I'm not ], BTW.<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Andy can rest assured that he is in no danger of being confused for the beloved Gerda; she is much cherished and respected by contributors to WP music articles, and when she disagrees with others she does it with grace and concision. ] (]) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Not done. Thread opened yesterday. If consensus is already so clear-cut, it doesn't require formal closure. -] (]) 16:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	::The problem, Nathan, is that there are two deeply entrenched views, neither of which is going to give way. Because there is no consensus to change, the ''status quo'' will remain. All that will happen is that positions will become more deeply entrenched than they were previously and tempers will become more frayed, leading to further snide accusations or sub-standard behavior. Sigh.... it'll just drag on pointlessly for another 10,000 words or so and become increasingly tiresome, divisive and polarising. Closure is probably the least painful pathway for all, despite the trite accusations of censorship and "stifling debate". - ] (]) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::One minor point, Nathan: the thread was opened on 30 May, not yesterday. Cheers. - ] (]) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::Called to my attention, makes me smile. My point of view: an infobox was suggested, was improved, so was the template, suggestions to improve the article came up, nothing wrong with that, right? - The infobox will not be admitted to the article anytime soon, so what? - It took a few months until I was "converted" from being against infoxes to seeing that they are good for accessibility. The infobox has been described as disfiguring the article. That's how you can look at a ramp for the disabled disfiguring a building. --] (]) 19:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{od}}
	I'm going to again request that an uninvolved '''admin''' has a look at this and brings it to a close, please. The full discussion of ] has ended in a whimper, albeitwith a very strong consensus to retain the ''status quo'', but I think an admin would be best to close this always-contentious subject. Many thanks. - ] (]) 08:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	{{done}} ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

	===]===		=== ] ===
	~~Request~~ ~~for~~ an ~~admin~~ to ~~close~~ ~~after~~ a 3 ~~week~~ ~~RFC.~~ ~~Cross~~ ~~posted~~ on AN. ] (]) 10:18, 2 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		{{initiated\|08:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)}} Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. ] (]) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Not done. Consensus unclear. Wait until the full month has passed. -] (]) 16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

			:give it more time. Usually need longer than just 4 days since RFC start, unless it is clearly overwhelming support (see ]). ] (]) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	===]===
			:Not a good idea to close this yet by the sounds of it, based on ]. ] (]) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Request for uninvolved editor to '''speedy close''' this disruptive RFC per ] started by an apparent single-purpose IP that has been blocked for canvassing. --]2] 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

	===]===		=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at ] and close the discussion. Which ever way this is closed (except no consensus obviously) a change/clarification will need to be made at ], ], and (if it's closed that way) removal of account creator rights from some people. ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	=== ] ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Request an uninvolved admin to close the discussion at ]. Consensus at the talk page was not to hold a formal RFC on this question, but this discussion linked was nonetheless broadly notified at various relevant wikiprojects.
			<!-- Place this line below the heading:
			{{Initiated\|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
			If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a \|type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. \|type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Initiated/doc for a list of codes.
			-->

			== Deletion discussions ==
	At issue is a stalemate around categorization of American novelists - some think they should be fully diffused, others disagree, so the result is now the head category has only 82, very famous novelists. I think most people agree the head cat should be empty, or contain all novelists. Both sides also seem to agree on the need for a broader RFC on the {{cl\|Writers}} tree, but I'd like to at least close this one out so we can break the stalemate and move on to the RFC, especially given intense media scrutiny around the contents of this specific category, it doesn't look good to have only 82 names there.--] (])
			{{XFD backlog\|right}}
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|17:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)\|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=xfd}} If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

			== Other types of closing requests ==
	===]===
			<!--
	Request an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at ]. After 30 days, broad consensus was to move the page and a majority of editors agreed on ] as the appropriate new title, but there was some impassioned dissent from one editor. An objective pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated to summarize the consensus view and make the move. ] (]) 04:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).
	:There's a history of sock puppets at the page and a current request to check for sock puppets, so I'd think it best to wait. ]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">]</font>)</sub> 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Let me contextualize this comment. The so-called "history of sock puppets" on the page occurred in early 2012 and was promptly dealt with. It has no bearing on the present issue. I should also point out that Smallbones is the one editor who has been fighting against the consensus view on the page, engaging in personal attacks and edit warring. His request for a sock puppet investigation (which has not been endorsed) has simply been the latest ploy in a concerted effort to battle consensus. He was referred to ANI earlier at ] Once again, I would like to request that an ''uninvolved'' editor look at the RfC on the talk page of the article, summarize the consensus view, and close the RfC. ] (]) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here.
	===]===
	Formal close needed on how to properly mark this page. The result is not clear cut so I don't think it can be closed by any of the discussion participants. ''']]''' 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
	===]===
			-->
	This has been closed by the bot after 30 days, and now an uninvolved editor is needed to sum up consensus. I've listed people's responses in a , in case it's helpful. Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

			===]===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an uninvolved admin please close this merger discussion. My analysis is:
	*The proposal to include ] in the three-way merger was rejected.
	*There was no consensus in respect of merging ] and ] into a single article.
	] (]) 07:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
	===]===

			=== ] ===
	Looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. Been a very debate article with many debated issues. Would help greatly if an admin closed this RFC. The RFC is now expired. ] (]) 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. ―] ] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
	:Please note the very biased phrasing of the RfC. ] (]) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. ] (]) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|29 October 2024}} There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the above. It was not an official RFC but more or less a straw poll to gauge consensus, though I am not sure that it ultimately has done so. However, it should be closed so we can see where it falls off. --''']]]''' 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

			===] ===
	===]===
	~~Could~~ an ~~uninvolved~~ ~~admin~~ ~~please~~ ~~close~~ ~~this~~ ~~RfC?~~ ] (]) 13:12, 13 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		{{initiated\| 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) \|type=rm}} RM that has been open for over a month. ] (]) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|25 November 2024}} I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">]<small> (]\|]) </small></span> 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
	Could use a final assessment and ruling on this one from an uninvolved admin. I believe everyone who had something to say has had their say. Thanks. --<font color="blue">Star</font><font color="orange">cheers</font><font color="green">peaks</font><font color="red">news</font><font color="black">lost</font><font color="blue">wars</font><sup>]</sup> 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

	===]===		===]===
			{{initiated\|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. ] (] • ]) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	There is already a consensus... or not... but I want people to look through comments before making conclusions and counting votes. --] (]) 06:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

	===]===		===]===
			{{initiated\|22:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)}} Has been open for nearly a month, I have !voted here so requesting an uninvolved closure. - ] <sub>]</sub> 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	The consensus has already established. --] (]) 06:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	===]===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	No activity since 1 June 2013. --] (]) 06:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:48, 30 December 2024

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Shortcuts

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Technical instructions for closers
Please append `{{Doing}}` to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with `{{Close}}` or `{{Done}}` and an optional note, and consider sending a `{{Ping}}` to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with `{{Not done}}`. After addressing a request, please mark the `{{Initiated}}` template with `\|done=yes`. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with `{{Already done}}`, `{{Close}}`, `{{Done}}` `{{Not done}}`, and `{{Resolved}}`.

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 17 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 15 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 83 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 63 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 54 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

(Initiated 50 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing... —Compassionate727 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Doing... Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 461#RfC: Check Your Fact

(Initiated 47 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Now archived. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

(Initiated 40 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 37 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

(Initiated 32 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#RFC: Referring to Masha Amini as Kurdish-Iranian in the lead

(Initiated 31 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

(Initiated 4 days ago on 26 December 2024) Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

give it more time. Usually need longer than just 4 days since RFC start, unless it is clearly overwhelming support (see WP:SNOW). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not a good idea to close this yet by the sounds of it, based on WP:UPHILLBATTLE. CNC (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Al-Manar

(Initiated 45 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	34	34
TfD	0	4	4
MfD	0	1	1
FfD	1	2	3
RfD	0	25	25
AfD	0	0	0

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_13#Category:People_by_criminal_charge

(Initiated 27 days ago on 3 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

(Initiated 32 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

(Initiated 25 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 96 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 75 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

(Initiated 73 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 62 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

(Initiated 54 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Expectation of privacy (United States)#Requested move 25 November 2024

(Initiated 35 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 33 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Super two#Proposed merge

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 December 2024) Has been open for nearly a month, I have !voted here so requesting an uninvolved closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Categories: