Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:30, 13 September 2014 editArmbrust (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,693 edits Reverted to revision 625439241 by SchroCat (talk): Not relevant to the closure request, RMs can be closed after seven days & this is over it. (Twinkle)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 December 2024 edit undoSzmenderowiecki (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,874 edits →Requests for comment Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{no admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{adminbacklog}}{{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}}
			\|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
	{{shortcut\|WP:ANRFC\|WP:AN/RFC}}</noinclude><includeonly>
			\|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 ]).
	==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.
	]
	'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''

			] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
	Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal ] is 30 days (opened on or before '''{{#time:j\|-30 days}} {{#time:F\|-30 days}} {{#time:Y\|-30 days}}'''); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

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

			] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
	Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a ] 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.

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

			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.
	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.

			] '''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'''.
	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.

			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.
	{{TOC limit\|3}}

			]
	== Requests for closure ==
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
	</noinclude>
	{{See also\|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Backlog\|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion\|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure\|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions\|Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion#Old discussions\|Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#Holding cell\|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
	<!--Please add new request to the bottom of the page! Thanks!-->

			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.
	=== ] ===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>As a side-effect of using ] to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for ] will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult ] to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
	:This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 2 September 2014 (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}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (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}}.
	*Not enough input to close properly. I notified ] for additional participants. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{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}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			]
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	=== ] ===
			* ]
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
	=== ] ===
			<!--
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (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 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at ]. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
	#] (initiated 17 September 2012)
	#] (initiated 24 July 2013)
	#] (initiated 18 August 2013)
	#] (initiated 18 August 2013)
	#] (initiated 17 September 2013)
	#] (initiated 20 September 2013)
	#] (initiated 2 October 2013)
	#] (initiated 2 October 2013)
	#] (initiated 31 October 2013)
	#] (initiated 23 November 2013)
	#] (initiated 3 December 2013)
	#] and ] (initiated 27 February 2014)
	#] (initiated 8 May 2014)
	#] (initiated 10 May 2014)
	#] (initiated 2 June 2014)
	#] (initiated 25 June 2014)
	#] (initiated 30 June 2014)
	#] (initiated 1 July 2014)
	#] (2 July 2014)
	Here are discussions with the ] closer:
	#] and ] (initiated 31 October 2013)
	#] and ] (initiated 11 November 2013)
	#] and ] (initiated 12 February 2014)
	#] and ] (initiated 19 May 2014)
	Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.] (]) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	: I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. ] (]) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. ] (]) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (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. *
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->

			=== ]===
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (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 9 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

			== Requests for comment ==
	=== ] ===
			<!--
	Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. ] (]) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (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
	=== ] ===
	Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by ] in article space? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 5 September 2014‎ (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. *
	=== ] ===
			-->
	Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by ] to ease the topic ban? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ]===
	=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|06:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)}} everybody has forgotten about that discussion, but it needs closure. ] (]) 13:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>This article has been subject to disputed editing over how much space to devote to Capitol Ministries – see ] vs the current. We need to gain consensus on how much detail to include, so all comments invited. I won't structure this yet as I have no idea..am only trying to admin this.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (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)
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 10 September 2014 (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 admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

	=== ] ===		===]===
			{{Initiated\|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (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;">—] <sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
			::{{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)

			=== ] ===
	=== ] ===
			{{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)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (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)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (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 uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at ] (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! ] (]) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	=== ] ===
	~~Long discussion~~, ~~open~~ ~~for~~ ~~over~~ 30 ~~days,~~ ~~now,~~ ~~requiring closure by an admin or uninvloved~~, ~~experienced~~ ~~editor.~~ ~~Thanks~~. ~~<span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">~~]~~ ~~]~~</span>~~ 02:59, 12 ~~September~~ ~~2014~~ (UTC)		{{initiated\|16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)\|done=yes}} Very wide impact, not much heat. ] (]) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			* Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a ] here, closed. ] (]) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	=== ] ===
	This RM has dragged on long enough, has no consensus whatsoever, and needs to be closed. ] — ] 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
	] has been open since 6 September, and there have been no comments in well-over 48 hours. Could a non-involved and neutral admin assess this thread to see if consensus has been reached, with a view to closing? Thanks – ] (]) 21:26, 13 September 2014 (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\|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)
			: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;">—] <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}}
			<!-- 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}}

			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

			== 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.

			* 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\|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. ―] ] 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;">—] <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.

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 and 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 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)

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)

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)

Done Soni (talk) 21:41, 24 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. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a WP;COI here, closed. Soni (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 36 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	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	16	16
TfD	0	8	8
MfD	2	2	4
FfD	1	6	7
RfD	9	57	66
AfD	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 29 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: