Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:04, 31 May 2021

Archives

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

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

• WP:CR
• WP:ANRFC
• WP:RFCLOSE

The Closure requests noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears 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 policy or guideline.

Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

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 request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 30 November 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

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

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.

A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure for details.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked 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}}.

Requests for closure

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket#Rugbyfan22's proposal

(Initiated 1369 days ago on 1 April 2021) There's been a lot of contention over the cricket notability guidelines, with large numbers of AfDs recently causing much discussion within the project and outside of the project, and the RfC period has just ended. I'm requesting a formal closure from someone uninvolved in the discussion and who hasn't been majorly involved in the discussions at WP:NSPORTS as we're keen as a project to potentially implement the proposal, or work on different changes if not implemented. Further details on the proposal can be found above the RfC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Undisclosed alternate accounts

(Initiated 1354 days ago on 15 April 2021) Well-advertised on T:CENT, this RfC has important policy implications that will benefit from a formal closure. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• In my view, that discussion intersects with Trust & Safety and the current anti-harassment RFC to such a large extent that it should either be closed by Maggie Dennis personally, or by a panel that includes her, or by an independent community member who has received her feedback prior to closing.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Right, and various policies and proposals try to do the same. They're almost all community policies, made and enforced. This is the same; it's an issue about amending a community policy, discussed by volunteers, and should be closed by any suitable community member, the same as any other discussion. If the WMF wants to setup a Board policy on this and thinks the community's views will be helpful, they could read the discussion or the summary of the consensus reached (ie, 'the close'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• {{not done}} I looked at this with a view to closing it. I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally. The RfC initiator said "I've not proposed specific wording, this is more about looking for consensus on the ideas, the wordsmiths can get in there and create the appropriate wording if such a consensus is reached". However, no consensus was reached about whether changes to the status quo are in fact desired, let alone what specific changes. I actually don't think a formal closure is beneficial; users are free to start a fresh discussion in future. If you still believe a formal closure is beneficial, please clarify what it will achieve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Ncmvocalist: If there was no consensus, and frankly when I've read that discussion I do see a consensus even if it's not identical to one of the three options that first was offered, that can be a close. But this was a centrally notified discussion which a nice level of participation and consensus can be reached about an outcome even if policy change language would then need to be identified and workshopped. Considering that this is a longstanding policy a NC would be significant. A well worded and thoughtful close helps to give shape and structure to what next steps would be for interested editors. I would ask that you reconsider this idea that it is not a discussion that needs to be closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49:: Thank you. On reconsidering this, I've reversed the "not done"; a detailed closure is needed after all for the reasons you have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I was open to reconsidering, which is what prompted my question and my choice not to alter the archive tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Ncmvocalist: I support a closure for the same reasons as Barkeep. Given the number of editors that have been blocked under PROJSOCK, clarification on this issue of policy is important moving forward. If you feel you can't don't want to close it, I would encourage you to remove the |done=yes parameter so that an another uninvolved editor can. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  That won't prevent this thread from being archived, you need to remove or disable the {{not done}} to achieve that. |done=yes means "no further action"; {{not done}} means "this may be archived because it will not be carried out". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz:: I understand that as a participant in the RfC that you would like a particular outcome, but as a matter of courtesy, you might want to consider how your last sentence reads. I am an uninvolved editor and already said "I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally". My initial view not to formally close was not about whether one can or can't, but rather, what the closure would achieve, as I already asked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Ncmvocalist: As a participant of course I'm involved, but (believe it or not) if it doesn't get closed in the way I !voted I wouldn't mind. Discussions aren't battles to be won or lost, after all. Given you used the {{Not done}} template instead of {{On hold}} or {{MoreInfo}}, it seemed like you were declining to close the discussion, and said you didn't think a formal closure is beneficial. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't uninvolved (nor was I questioning your closing ability) and have amended my comment accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz: no worries, thank you; I'll take that on board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  I also support a closure, because this is an important discussion which could have wide ranging implications. I encourage Ncmvocalist to remove the not done to prevent this being archived without a closure.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  I've deactivated the done tag, since there seems to be a consensus above that a closure is preferable (and I agree). ProcSock (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Jackattack1597: It might have been misunderstood, but I didn't intend for this to be archived as yet - as I expected a response to my question before deciding whether to let this be archived or to formally close this. Subsequently, someone else boldly added the archive link in good faith thinking that I might have forgotten. In any case, thank you ProcSock for deactivating it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Ncmvocalist: That edit did not add the archive link, please read my post of 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC). The |done=yes parameter of {{initiated}} does two things, and no more: it de-colours the "Initiated X days ago on 15 April 2021" text, and instructs the template not to put the thread in Category:Administrative backlog.

  It was your own edit that marked this thread for archiving, and all I did was tidy up an inconsistency, which was hardly a bold action. See the last paragraph of the notice that was presented to you when you posted here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Ah right; thank you for clarifying what the parameter/edit actually does, as I was mistaken above. Your post of 25 May 2021 actually said {{Not done}} template means "this may be archived because it will not be carried out" and that the |done=yes parameter indicates "no further action"; I read this to be consistent with my understanding that the archival isn't guaranteed if the parameter isn't inserted. I didn't see the changes that were made over the last year to the notice you have linked to, but it currently says that {{Not done}} means "this will automatically archive". In future, I'll use the {{On hold}} template instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  I intended "no further action" to be read as "no further action on this thread is required by any living human", but that seemed to contain much that was redundant. I suppose that if taken to its ultimate conclusion, "no further action" could be interpreted as "nobody, not even archiving bots, is to do anything with this thread, it must be left set in stone for all eternity". We don't really want that, I think.

  As an example of how ClueBot III operates, see the edit immediately following your last post here - in that edit, three threads were archived, of which two have both |done=yes and {{done}}, whereas the third has only {{not done}}. It is clear that for the third thread, ClueBot III has picked up on the presence of the {{not done}}, whilst the lack of |done=yes has not influenced the bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Chawinda#RfC: What was the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda?

(Initiated 1355 days ago on 15 April 2021) Thanks.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Second Cold War#Term or event?

(Initiated 1351 days ago on 19 April 2021) Uninvolved editor needed please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• @George Ho: -  Done starship.paint (exalt) 03:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Consolidating help venues

(Initiated 1346 days ago on 23 April 2021) Requesting uninvolved closure here please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I closed one proposal (@Nick Moyes and ProcrastinatingReader:), there is one more proposal left to close. starship.paint (exalt) 04:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Age of Empires III#Merger proposal

(Initiated 1482 days ago on 9 December 2020) Quite an old merger discussion, that could to with an uninvolved close. Thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  08:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article"

(Initiated 1375 days ago on 26 March 2021) Note to closer: there were also two other relevant discussions, a BRFA (which was put on hold pending a closure to this discussion) and a conversation at Shortdesc helper talk (same situation there). — Goszei (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Removal_of_"UK"_from_location_field_in_infoboxes

(Initiated 1360 days ago on 10 April 2021) Not a formal RFC, but this discussion attracted plenty of attention anyway. It has been open for over a month now with no new comments since the end of April. -- Calidum 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Zosimus (historian)#Requested move 30 April 2021

(Initiated 1340 days ago on 30 April 2021) For now the consensus for a move is clear. Would like for someone uninvolved to close this. Avilich (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Avilich: -  Done starship.paint (exalt) 04:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Redirect Candice Brown?

(Initiated 1336 days ago on 4 May 2021) The discussion went stale for almost two weeks. Uninvolved editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading

• Administrative backlog
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards