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 20:47, 22 December 2013 editTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,478 edits This is implicit in the existing language, but I'm starting to think that it needs to be spelled out.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 December 2024 edit undoSzmenderowiecki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,874 edits →Requests for commentTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
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''', and consequently do not need to be listed here. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before '''{{#time:j|-30 days}} {{#time:F|-30 days}} {{#time:Y|-30 days}}'''); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after '''{{#time:j|-7 days}} {{#time:F|-7 days}} {{#time:Y|-7 days}}''') except in the case of ].


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. See ] for previous closure reviews.


] '''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.
===]===
The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --] (]) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
:Comment: The discussion was opened on October 25 and there has been no discussion since November 9. The RfC question is (posed by ]): should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? -- ]]. 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


]
===] open discussions===
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to ] if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:


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.
# ]
#: {{close}} by {{user|Werieth}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{close}} by {{user|Werieth}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{close}} by {{user|Werieth}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
# ]
#: {{close}} by {{user|‎Sven Manguard}}. -- ]]. 18:37, 29 November 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.
There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ]]. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
{{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/>
===] and ]===
{{TOC limit|4}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:
]
:#] (initiated 24 August 2013)
:#] (initiated 22 October 2013)
:#] (initiated 22 October 2013)
My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (], ], and ]) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute ]. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).<p>The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
===]===
* ]
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
===]===
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 October 2013; see the subsection at ]). Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
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
===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 December 2013)? See the subsection ]. ] may be applicable. Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


*** 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. ***
===]===
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


=== ]===
===]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 October 2013)? Please see the 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC) comment by {{user|74.192.84.101}} at the bottom of the discussion: "...I suggest we bring in somebody uninvolved to close out the RfC, and determine if we have enough of a consensus, or not." Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


== Requests for comment ==
===]===
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 October 2013)? Please consider the previous RfCs ] and ] in your closure. Thanks, ] (]) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
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
===]===
Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus and close this merge discussion? Thanks,--] ]/] 18:37, 18 December 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. ***
=== ] ===
-->
Please can an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]?<br />It has been opened for nearly 2 months, and discussion is now sporadic. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


=== ]===
=== ] ===
{{initiated|06:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)}} everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. ] (]) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion stalled since 18 November. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


=== ] === === ] ===
Discussion stalled since 8 December. --] <small>] • (])</small> 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC) {{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
=== ] ===
There are a bunch of uncontroversial closes to be made in this month-old batch of categories. ] (]) 19:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC) {{initiated|22:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. ] (]) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. ] (]) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:Now only ] needs closure from this page. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
:: <small>And in true ] fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. ] (]) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<s><nowiki>{{doing}}</nowiki></s> ] (]/]) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oops; I put this in the wrong section. ] (]/]) 00:30, 26 December 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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (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)}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (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)
===]===
:{{Doing}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at ] <small>], ]</small> (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a ], and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at ]. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to ]. Thanks!</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 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)


=== ] ===
===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC) {{Initiated|18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to ] (]) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* Done ] (]) 21:41, 24 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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Misplaced Pages viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote: <blockquote>This RfC after ], an ], ], and ]) ...</blockquote> An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ]). Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
{{Initiated|18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}} 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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose we should migrate convert to use the module ] now, as it seems it's ready for prime time now. I understand this is a big switch, so please decide wisely." Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} Very wide impact, not much heat. ] (]) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 December 2013)? See the subsection ]. ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


* Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a ] here, closed. ] (]) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
===]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 December 2013)? The last post was 19 December 2013. An uninvolved admin wrote: <blockquote>Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue!</blockquote> The opening poster has not repopulated the categories. Admin guidance would be helpful in determining whether the opening poster is allowed to undo the out-of-process category renaming based on the discussion's consensus which would prevent the opening poster from being accused of edit warring. ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (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)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
{{Initiated|22:51, 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.] (]) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 December 2013)? A participant wrote: <blockquote>Would an uninvolved admin be able to close this discussion? ]] (]) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (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)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
<!-- 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 ==
===] and ]===
{{XFD backlog|right}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] and ] (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
===]===
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 23 November 2013)? The last comment was on 16 December 2013. The discussion was listed at and archived from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
===]===
Can someone please close this discussion as consensus has been attained. Thanks. ] (]) 12:55, 21 December 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 3 September 2013)? At ], the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC ''is'' restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, ] (]) 19:08, 21 December 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)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (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;">—]&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)

===] ===
{{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|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)

===]===
{{initiated|15:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ ] (]) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Doing}} ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}

Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 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 12 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Requests for comment

    Wikipedia_talk:Find_your_source#RfC:_Bypass_Paywalls_Clean

    (Initiated 100 days ago on 17 September 2024) everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 79 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

    (Initiated 70 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    {{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 59 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 46 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)

    Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

    (Initiated 42 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 42 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)

    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 40 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)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 35 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 33 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)

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

    (Initiated 17 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)

    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 16 16
    TfD 0 0 0 8 8
    MfD 0 0 2 2 4
    FfD 0 0 1 6 7
    RfD 0 0 9 59 68
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    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 92 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 71 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 69 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 58 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 50 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:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 29 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:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

     Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Categories: