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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:34, 27 October 2013 editSmyth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,815 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:29, 29 December 2024 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,670 edits →Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact: update link 
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 this page and not here.
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
----------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--></noinclude><includeonly>{{TOC limit|3}}</includeonly><noinclude>
-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
| algo = old(40d)
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d
]
| counter = 7
{{Archive basics
| maxarchivesize = 500K
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader =
|counter = 37
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| minthreadsleft = 0
|maxsize = 256000
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=40}}</noinclude>
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
<noinclude>
|format= %%i
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}</noinclude>
|age=4368
<includeonly>
|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 ]).
==Requests for closure==
:''This section is ] from ].''</includeonly>
<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.


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
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; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week except in the case of ].


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.
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.


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


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'''.
A ] 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 ] and ]—see ] and ] for details.


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.
{{TOC limit|3}}


] '''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'''.
==Requests for closure==
</noinclude>
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions}}


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.
===]===
IMHO the section headed '''Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?''' should be closed; discussion had stopped about 2 weeks ago except for ]'s recent contribution. The other sections on the same or related topics are still ongoing. ] (]) 12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
:The discussion was archived to ].<p>After an experienced editor assesses the consensus in the discussion, please either (i) move the discussion with your closing statement back to ] or (ii) close the discussion in the archive and announce the result on ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


]
:'''Suggestion:''' Because ] opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, ''''']''''' covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, '']'' opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of ], '']'' questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", '']'' rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and '']'' rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. ] (]) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
'''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.
::{{Done}}. I totally agree, and I have copied the above comment to the archive page. – ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


'''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}}
A long an convoluted discussion affecting several hunderd articles. I can't see any clear consensus. Prefer admin closure please. --] (]) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
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/>
===] (second close request)===
{{TOC limit|4}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 August 2013)? See my previous close request ].
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
The close by {{user|NE Ent}} was contested at ] by the RfC initiator, {{user|Purplebackpack89}}; the subject, {{user|Joefromrandb}}; and uninvolved editor {{user|Cyberpower678}}.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
{{collapse top}}
<!--
{{quotation|1=
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! &nbsp;Let a bot do it. &nbsp;Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
I see you closed this earlier today. Do you intend to interpret whether there is a consensus about Joe's behavior? "Inactive" doesn't seem to be the way most RfCs are closed; most of them instead try to interpret consensus. Can we expect that in the near future? <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">]]]</span> 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
:I closed per the instructions at ] as the state of the RFC situation seemed to fit the criteria. <small>]</small>
::When you close, you're supposed to provide a close statement, not "closed due to inactivity".—] ]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 00:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Reopen it, NE Ent, and let an admin close it. Your close is only giving PbP yet another opportunity to throw his toys out of the pram. ] (]) 07:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
—]}}


=== ]===
There was no subsequent response from {{user|NE Ent}}, and the discussion was archived.
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


== Requests for comment ==
Recent RfCs have been closed and summarized by uninvolved administrators:
<!--
:#]'s : "No users endorsed the certifier's position, only statements critical of the certifiers and the process received significant support."
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)
:#]'s : " is broadly correct to remove unsourced conten, and has often acted wrongly in restoring unsourced content.<br />Also, 's conduct is widely seen as hounding."
:#]'s : "No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration."
:#]'s : "There was consensus that approach needs to change. The closing admin suggested that he agree to a voluntary topic ban regarding deletion issues in the problem area."
:#]'s : "Broad consensus that 's work was indeed problematic, a problem now recognized by . Good will and good faith all around, fortunately."
{{collapse bottom}}
] (]) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


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

{{cot|1=15 NFCR sections}}
*** 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. ***
# ]
-->
# ]

# ]
=== ] ===
# ]
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
# ]

# ]
===] ===
# ]
{{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)
# ]
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
# ]
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
# ]

# ]
===]===
# ]
{{Initiated|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
# ]
Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. ] (]) 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. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}
:{{Doing}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
A ] that needs closed. ] (]) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
::{{yo|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ]&nbsp;<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;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — ]&nbsp;<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)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:Now ]. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{Initiated|18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{doing}} ] (]/]) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]/]) 21:31, 28 December 2024 (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)

=== ] ===
{{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)

===]===
{{Initiated|22:51, 8 December 2024|done=yes}} No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.] (]) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}. @]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
<!-- 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 ==
{{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 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)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd|done=yes}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|Explicit|Xplicit}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>01:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
This RFC, triggered by the Manning controversy, has now been running for 1 month and is not receiving any new comments. Because of its sensitivity, I suggest that it is given a similar level of care to the Manning controversy itself. – ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
===]===
<!--
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.
This RfC was started on September 6h. The tag for this RfC seems to have been deleted. Can an admin please close? Thanks. ] (]) 05:58, 12 October 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. ***
===]===
-->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 August 2013)? at ] before being moved to ]. The questions posed were: <blockquote>1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances.</blockquote> ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 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 experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 October 2013)? The discussion is listed at ]. The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>This stems from a discussion at ] - relevant discussions are also at ] and ]. The templates being discussed are ], ] and ]. ] (]) 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Discussion now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


===]===
=== ] ===
{{initiated|14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. ] (]) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Would be grateful for someone with a measure of common sense to close this interminable discussion about the use of imperial units on wikipedia, which stems from the thorny question of whether in a few limited circumstances you should put miles before kilometres. I would also suggest a large dose of ] all round, a suggestion that reprising this discussion on a monthly basis stops and perhaps a ] as suggested at ]. {{facepalm|I really can't believe what people argue over}}. ] <small>]</small> 11:27, 14 October 2013 (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;">—]&nbsp;<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)
This non-free content review needs an experienced closer. Discussion commenced on 27 June and there's been no new comments added since 19 August. Warning: Lotsa plenty of reading here. Thanks, -- ] (]) 23:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


===] ===
=== ]===
This discussion was started on 27 July 2013 (UTC); requesting closure by an uninvolved editor. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:24, 18 October 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> (]&#124;]) </small></span> 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the content of this article has already been presented within ]. Still, this is controversial case which needs to be closed by administrator who is not involved.--] (]) 11:09, 21 October 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)
You can close it either right now or on 26 October 2013. Your choice. ] (]) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


=== ] === ===]===
{{initiated|00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=drv|done=yes}} ] ] 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Article has been open for more than one week without relisting nor closure. --] (]) 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|Beeblebrox|El Beeblerino}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>01:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:{{close}} by {{admin|Mark Arsten}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
The discussion was closed by a non admin who is well known for holding views decidedly outside of the mainstream Misplaced Pages community, with a conclusion that I do not think accurately reflects the discussion and policies presented. I would request a non involved Admin review. -- ] 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:29, 29 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.
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 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

    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 15 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 13 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 82 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 61 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)

    information 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

    (Initiated 48 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)

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

    (Initiated 45 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)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

     Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
     Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 36 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)

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

    (Initiated 30 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)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

    (Initiated 20 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
     Done. @RachelTensions. TarnishedPath 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 25 25
    TfD 0 0 0 4 4
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 1 2 3
    RfD 0 0 2 47 49
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

    (Initiated 60 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 31 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 26 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 23 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

    (Initiated 19 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

     Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  01:25, 29 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 95 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 73 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 71 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 61 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 53 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 34 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 31 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

    (Initiated 27 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

     Closed by editor El Beeblerino. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  01:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Categories: