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 12:18, 22 November 2015 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,916 edits →Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:ArbCom-banned Leucosticte's articles: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:20, 3 January 2025 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,376,942 editsm Archiving 3 discussions to Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 39. (BOT) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}}
<!-- <!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->

{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
--><noinclude>
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }} {{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
] ]
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 19 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 256000 |maxsize = 256000
}}
}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=7200 |age=4368
|archivenow=<nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close</nowiki> |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}} |header={{Aan}}
|headerlevel=3 |headerlevel=3
Line 22: Line 25:
|minkeepthreads=0 |minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16 |numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}} }}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}} {{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


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. <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 ]).
]
'''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 F 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.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Tl|Close}} or {{Tl|Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.</noinclude>
{{TOC limit|4}}


]
== Requests for closure ==
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
<includeonly>:''These requests for closure are ] from ].''</includeonly><!--


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.
Please add new requests to the bottom of the page! Thanks!


'''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}}
{{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 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}}.
<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->
{{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}}
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on <s><nowiki>10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}</nowiki></s>), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has '''163''' discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. ] (]) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
]
:Please update <nowiki>{{Initiated}}</nowiki> below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--] (]) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
::{{Initiated|13 June 2015}}
::About '''155''' discussions still to be closed.
Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--] (]) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
*I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on ] (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) ] (]) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
===]===
* ]
Can this RfC be closed. The consensus has been established and the article is already altered accordingly. However ,a formal closure would help to split this RfC with other that are unrelated. ] (]) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
* ]
:{{On hold}} - The RfC has been open for less than two weeks and editors are still commenting. - ]] 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|7 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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
===]===
If there is consensus, it needs accurate closing rationale. ] (]) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
:Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|6 October 2015}}? There has been no discussion since 17 October 2015. As noted at ], the discussion was prematurely archived by the bot and from the archive to the talk page. Thanks, ] (]) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
:: Actually, someone voted on the previous day, 26 October 2015. ] (]) 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
:::I took a look at it, and it looks no consensus at this point, perhaps a few more days will get some more responses. ] 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
:::: Five days passed, ]. Want to take a request? --] (]) 17:23, 10 November 2015 (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|14 September 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


=== ]===
===]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this ]. ] (]) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
=== ] ===
*{{Initiated|28 October 2015}} ] 18:07, 31 October 2015 (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 ==
===]===
<!--
Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this ]? {{Initiated|17 October 2015}} ]&nbsp;]] 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)
:Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 08:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
===]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|17 October 2015|type=xfd|done=yes}}? Please consider the related discussion ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 06:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:Here are related discussions that should also be closed:
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:#]
:For consistency, these probably should all be closed by the same admin.<p>] concluded: <blockquote>The problem is that the policy is unclear enough the any closer is pretty much going to have to make it up on the hoof and this discussion has not really moved that position forward. Usually, we would relist if the outcome isn't clear or feels unsatisfactory but I can't see that will improve matters either as the next close will have the same problem. I'm therefore closing this as no action but suggest to the nominator that they open an RFC to garner wider input into what our policy should be for keep local images</blockquote> ] (]) 07:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
::All {{done}} by {{noping|TLSuda}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:08, 22 November 2015 (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 admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|2 October|type=xfd|done=yes}}? ] might be a related discussion. Thanks, ] (]) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} by {{noping|Nthep}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


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


===] ===
Admin closure requested. These two RfCs went up on October 11. They address Misplaced Pages's policy toward transgender individuals, specifically which pronouns and names to use when discussing parts of their lives before their gender transition. The first addresses whether Misplaced Pages's current policy on biographical articles, ], should be changed and if so to what. The second addresses whether MOS:IDENTITY should be amended to include a rule about how to refer to trans individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject. It's been a few days since our last new comment. ] (]) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (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)
*Both were {{Initiated|11 October}}. ] 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
**The discussions are still ongoing. This should be left open until they peter out. The issue comes up again and again, so this should run its course until exhausted, so we can be certain the discussion is as thorough as it practically can be this time. I'd advocate giving it at least a few more days, if not a week. It's more important to get a solid consensus this time than an expedient one. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. ] (]) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{Initiated|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Request to close out the ] RfC, it has expired and we do have a clear consensus established on the issue. {{Initiated|10 October 2015}}--] (]) 16:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
*Hello, just a friendly FYI… still requesting to close out this RfC. --] (]) 12:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===Classification of Products by Activity===
{{initiated|10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*] {{Initiated|type=xfd|5 October 2015|done=yes}}
It seems that all the regular admins at RfD have participated in this RfD discussion, so we need a fresh pair of eyes to close it. ]] 22:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} by {{noping|Just Chilling}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
This discussion is happening on three pages at once (NORNB, ] where it actually belongs, plus another at ]). This NORNB tine of the fork has turned into another couple-of-editors-textwalling-against-each-other thing, and is actually in the wrong venue. ] pertains to the information content, not how WP presentationally wraps it. I.e., the actual content that is subject to core content policies is what the pronunciation(s) is/are. WP has multiple pronunciation transcription markup systems, and like our citation styles, this is WP-original metadata, not subject to WP:CORE. One of them is based on (mostly American) dictionary-style pronunciation keys: ; the other loosely based on IPA. Both are synthetic and are internal matters, and not subject to WP:NOR / ]. As long as the pronunciation that emerges in the reader's mind is verifiable, it does not matter what markup wrapper we convey it with. Both of our extant pronunciation guide systems could be replaced tomorrow with something entirely different and even more arbitrary (even one consisting of {{em|entirely}} WP-invented orthography, though that would not of course be practical). While I agree that OP has a point – it's not wise for us to use a WP-modified version of IPA that conflicts with IPA norms that a linguist would expect – that's not an NOR matter, but a matter for consensus discussion at the IPA for English talk page. The discussion {{em|there}} should remain open until naturally resolved or a closure request is made, while the one at NORNB should be closed as no consensus / off topic. {{Initiated|27 October 2015}} <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:Now both sides of the dispute have conceded that this won't be resolved as a ] issue, so this fork of the discussion has no reason to stay open at ], and can be centralized, finally, at ], which is collectively trying to actually resolve it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
"Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion ]". {{Initiated|30 October 2015}} ] (]) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (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)
* When this is closed it definitely needs to be closed in tandem with ]. I've read through a lot this morning and have no idea what to do; there's no strong consensus to do anything (i.e. there is zero agreement on what wording to actually use) but there is pretty strong consensus that the current situation is not sufficient for BLP. There are a lot of other factors at play here too; like how some BLP's are badly categorised anyway (which the rename may have compounded). My feeling is that we're I to close this I'd do a no-consensu o ''what to call the category'', delete the cat under ] and open a neutral RFC incorporating all of the main suggestions for category naming and inclusion criteria, to resolve this in detail. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:: Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether ] claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. ] (]) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:::IIRC, policy-based decisions trump "content decisions" and suggest that the CfD was the latter, and the BLP/N decision the former. ] (]) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (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)
Can an experienced editor assess the consensus at the above link and close the discussion? Thanks. ] (]) 13:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
:Since an important point at issue is to what degree consensus of opinion can override ], I suggest that we need an experienced, disinterested and uninvolved admin to close this RfC. ] (]) 15:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
::{{done}} by {{u|ArnoldReinhold}}. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 05:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|02:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Need a consensus to be assessed please.] (]) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
:Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|15 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}} The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we get an independent close please. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 September 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 October 2015}}? See the subsection ]. Please consider the closed RfC ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
:Now archived at ] ] <sup>]</sup> 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{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}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|3 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|28 September 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|30 October 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 11:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|25 October 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
===]===
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 September 2015}}? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should the on 'sister article' (]) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Misplaced Pages articles)</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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|28 September 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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|1 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|7 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|13 October 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 September 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|1 October 2015}}? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|26 September 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 11:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|27 September 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|13 October 2015|done=yes}}? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 05:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|5 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 October 2015}}? See the subsection ]. Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|9 October 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 12:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|9 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|14 October 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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|26 September 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:07, 22 November 2015 (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|2 November 2015|type=drv|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} by Timotheus Canens. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 05:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|29 October 2015|type=drv|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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)
:{{done}} by Lankiveil. ] <i style="font-size:11px">(])</i> 05:17, 22 November 2015 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|5 November 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 November 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} by {{noping|Spike Wilbury}}, and now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
{{initiated|7 November 2024}} Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|5 November 2015|done=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} by {{noping|Müdigkeit}}, and now archived in ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:18, 22 November 2015 (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)
Although I am the nominator of the discussion (and thus have a clear bias), in my opinion there appears to be a clear consensus (eight votes against one) that a Topic Ban should be imposed on User:ThorLives as a sanction for their constant disruptive editing; such a ban would cover all articles and related pages (including talk pages, GANs, peer reviews, and FACs) to do with Heathenry and other forms of modern Paganism, related forms of religion, and the Germanic peoples. However, given that I am the user responsible for nominating this community discussion, I am unsure whether or not I would be authorised to bring the discussion to an end and inform ThorLives of the sanction. After all, states that "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an '''uninvolved administrator''' notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually ] or ]." That being the case, it would be appreciated if such an "uninvolved administrator" could take a look at this issue, deciding whether consensus really has been achieved and if so, whether a sanction should be implemented. Many thanks, ] (]) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===]===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Uninvolved administrator needed. --] (]) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:20, 3 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
"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,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    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 21 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 19 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 88 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 67 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)

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

    (Initiated 58 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 44 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 42 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)

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

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

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Zionism#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 30 November 2024) The bot has removed the RFC notice. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 11 0 11
    TfD 0 0 4 0 4
    MfD 0 0 1 0 1
    FfD 0 1 11 0 12
    RfD 0 0 28 0 28
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

    (Initiated 37 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 32 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

    (Initiated 15 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

    (Initiated 14 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 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 101 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 79 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 77 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 67 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 59 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

    (Initiated 58 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 37 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)

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

    Categories: