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 19:51, 2 March 2018 editBeeblebrox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators112,644 edits →Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section: derp← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:29, 29 December 2024 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,670 edits →Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact: update link 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Admin backlog}} {{no 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 ]}}
{{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 = 25 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 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,{{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=4 |headerlevel=3
|maxarchsize=256000 |maxarchsize=256000
|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|WP:RfCl}} {{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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a ]. <section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
]
'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''


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.
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.


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
]
'''If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.'''


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'''.
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.


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


] '''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'''.
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.


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.
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.


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

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

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

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


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
== Requests for closure ==
* ]
<includeonly>:''These requests for closure are ] from ].''</includeonly><!--
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
Please add new requests to the bottom of the appropriate section! If none of the sections apply, you may need to add one, since the section heading may have been deleted or hidden. Thanks!
<!--
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
-->

{{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:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
*** 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. ***
<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
===Administrative discussions===

====]====
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|14 February 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC) === ]===
{{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====
=== ] ===
{{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}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


== Requests for comment ==
===RfCs===
<!--
<!-- Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top) -->
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
====]====
{{Initiated|11 January 2018}} Would an experienced editor (ideally someone with template editor rights as the page is template protected) assess the consensus at ] please? ]★] -- 12:13, 27 February 2018 (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|12 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
*<small>Fixed date, is initiated 12 january 2018 ] (]) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)</small>


=== ] ===
====]====
{{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|17 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (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 at ] {{Initiated|17 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (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 at ] {{Initiated|18 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (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 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
::{{yo|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. ] (]) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|23 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


:Now ]. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{Initiated|18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
:{{doing}} ] (]/]) 20:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] (]/]) 21:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|24 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
: Not done. Discussion on this matter still ongoing. The latest comment in this thread is dated 19:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC). I'd wait at least another week on this to be sure the discussion has actually concluded. -- ] (]) 17:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
::Removed not done template since the bot archives the discussion if thet template is present. I'm fine with waiting a week before assessing the consensus. I've restored this close request from the archive to this board as it can be easily forgotten if it is moved to the archives. ] (]) 08:32, 27 February 2018 (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 experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|24 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|24 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{Initiated|22:51, 8 December 2024|done=yes}} No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.] (]) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated| 29 January 2018}}? Thanks,] (]) 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278
:I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}. @]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|28 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (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 ==
====]====
{{XFD backlog|right}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|31 January 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd|done=yes}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|Explicit|Xplicit}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>01:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|1 February 2018}}? Thanks, ] (]) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
:FYI, this has been moved to the archive already - ]. No comments in several days. Still needs a closing statement though. -- ] ] 05:25, 27 February 2018 (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.
====]====
{{initiated|17:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)|done=yes}} This has been going for two weeks and folks have stopped !voting. <span style="background-color:black;color:#808080;"></span> <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
*<span style="background-color:black;color:#808080;"></span> <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)<small><small>requests for closure are preferred to be neutrally worded.]<sup>]</sup> 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)</small></smalL>
**Hmm...{{Re|MjolnirPants}}--I don't think that a ] is highly-appropriate in the circumstances and it might be better to wait for a few more days to evaluate the stagnation of the discussion and/or new participation.]<sup>]</sup> 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
:::I'm not asking for a snow close; If you check the page, I explicitly denied the possibility of a snow close. But it's still quite an obvious close, and folks seem to have stopped !voting (the last one was almost four days ago). By the way, next time I make commentary like that, you may feel free to treat it the same exact way I did with this edit, though your method was rather more considerate. I'd have split it up myself (and posted it as a comment near the end of the RfC, instead of here) except I'm tired and therefore, temporarily stupid. At least I hope it's temporary... <cue the ominous music> <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 04:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|Winged Blades of Godric}} It's been 4 more days without any !votes or even commentary. The last !vote was a week ago, do you think that's long enough? (Serious question; I'm not being at all sarcastic and will defer to your judgement here.) <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 00:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
::::: Agree. We need closure so we can move on. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 06:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
::::::{{done}} ] (]) 13:53, 2 March 2018 (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 ]? This RfC was only opened two days ago (by myself), but I feel the consensus is so overwhelming that I am justified in seeking to have this discussion closed so that we can move on. {{Initiated|28 February 2018}} ] (]) 13:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
*'''Objection'''. The person making the request is the person who started the RfC. I have not participated in it, myself -- because I think it is not a valid RfC. We are asked to choose between two versions selected by the OP; why does that individual get to determine the choices open to other editors? I agree the RfC can be closed -- on grounds of being invalid. ] (]) 15:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
::A: I’m entitled to request closure (unless someone can point to a policy I’m not familiar with that proves otherwise).
::B: I don’t even understand the second objection. RfCs usually present two options, and you are welcome to suggest alternatives, as indeed people have. You don’t have to support either option. This has already been explained to you by another user on the article talk page. What must an RfC consist of to be valid, in your terms? ] (]) 15:53, 2 March 2018 (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)
Open since Feb 4. This is an easy one, consensus is prety clear, but would change policy so a formal close from an uninvolved user is in order. ] (]) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line====
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


===]===
=== Deletion discussions ===
{{initiated|14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. ] (]) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line ====
: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)
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


===]===
=== Other types of closing requests ===
{{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)
====]====
Editors are debating a smallish proposed addition to the History section. We would appreciate a Close from an uninvolved editor.&ndash; ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
{{hat|collapsing per "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." Any extra comments should be made at the discussion.}}
:There is no RFC there, and there is still nothing resembling a consensus. OP has again revert warned on his false notion of consensus and again the article is at RFPP. And his "we" above can only be construed as a royal we, as there was 0 discussion of closing or requesting an administrator's assistance in assessing consensus. ] (]) 07:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::I would say that Lionelt's is the better description of the situation. ] (]) 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
:As John from Idegon said, there was no RfC regarding the History section of the article. No RfC = no closure needed. Jzsj has apparently confused ] with ]. ] (]) 17:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
::Other discussions can also be closed, if needed. ] (]) 06:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
:In fact there is no RFC at all. It is just another trick to turn the article in one big advertising piece, against the prevailing consensus. Extra people have been drummed up by canvassing. The article has been protected a few times now, due to the disruptive editing of both Lionelt and jzsj. Ow, and Lionelt claims proposal 4, with a vote of 3-3 should be the winning proposal. In fact, proposal 3, with a 3-0 vote is votewise the winning proposal. A boomerang should be nice now as the only thing that is happening is restarting the discussion every time both gentleman find themselves on the losing side of arguments. (Inclusing archives, the talkpage is now roughly 250k for an article of not even 5k... <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">]&nbsp;]</span> 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
{{hab}}


===] ===
====]====
{{initiated| 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |type=rm}} RM that has been open for over a month. ] (]) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
This ] on ] has run its course and the tone of the discussion is moving in the wrong direction. Could an uninvolved administrator assess if the ] needs to be reopened? <b>]</b> <small>(], ])</small> 16:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{initiated|25 November 2024}} I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---<span style="font-family: Calibri">]<small> (]&#124;]) </small></span> 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how much longer the merge discussion should stay open. ] (]) 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

:Good point. That looks more than ready to be closed. (But it's a touchy topic, so I don't feel qualified to do it myself.) —] (]) 00:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
===]===
::{{Done}}. ] (]) 13:30, 2 March 2018 (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|00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=drv|done=yes}} ] ] 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|Beeblebrox|El Beeblerino}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>01:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

=== 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 01:29, 29 December 2024

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Archives

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Technical instructions for closers

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

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


    Other areas tracking old discussions

    Administrative discussions

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

    (Initiated 15 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 13 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Requests for comment

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

    (Initiated 82 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 61 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
     Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 45 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 30 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Deletion discussions

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

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

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

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

    (Initiated 31 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

    (Initiated 23 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

     Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  01:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

    (Initiated 95 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 73 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 71 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 61 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 53 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 31 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

    Categories: