Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 14 June 2013

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 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WP:ANRFC
• WP:AN/RFC

The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need formal closure.

A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator should summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, the process to appeal is to start a new thread at the Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason why you think the closure should be overturned.

Requests for closure

WP:RM

WP:RM is designed to have all requested moves either relisted or closed before reaching the backlog. See WP:RMCI for closing instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apteva (talk • contribs) 01:17, 23 May 2013‎ UTC

I did a few. Pretty unsatisfying work, which is probably why there's a backlog... -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never done these, because the formal procedure is unreasonably complicated. If someone made a script, like for closing AfDs, then I would--but it would still leave the history merge problem which I doubt can be automated. I will not to history merges, because the few Idid , I got it wrong about half the time. Perhaps we could find a better way. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Johnson's closure is contested at WP:ANI. If you're Nathan, watch out if you want to< evaluate less-than-easy discussions and then briefly explain without adequate rationale. Otherwise, if you are another non-administrator, there are more in backlogs, but go for easiest first. I recommend that an administrator can evaluate more challenging discussions if well-experienced. --George Ho (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Dennis Brown makes sure that Nathan would know what he is going to do in regards to requested moves, I guess that I should not discriminate admins and non-admins. Actually, I will be careful of experiences. Still, Nathan swears that he'll make rationales next time. Back to this request, more experienced editor is needed. --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done a few and have to agree that it is quite draining to read all the discussion on what is often a quite trivial point. To DGG, most of these do not require a hsitmerge so you should be able to close them succesfully without fear of error. SpinningSpark 15:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel

This RFC/U was opened a month ago, so I am requesting an uninvolved admin to gauge the consensus and close it. BOZ (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I second this request. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox, where it is clear that there is no consensus for change. On a purely proactical level, there is a section of the talk thread (Talk:The Rite of Spring#Improving Content ...) which is still active and does not relate directly to the infobox argument, or at least contains a discussion which has moved past the infobox and deals only with the content of the article. I suspect this should be left open for further discussion. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Objection A number of editors, on both sides of the discussion, have posted in the last 12 hours; the discussion is not over and this is an attempt by an involved editor to stifle debate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is one principal, strongly committed, dissentient voice from the consensus, and I see no prospect of a change to the consensus. After more than 8,500 words on this matter I think the discussion on adding an info-box has run its course, and perpetuation is verging on the vexatious. Tim riley (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

...two involved editors attempting to stifle debate. I'm not Gerda, BTW.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy can rest assured that he is in no danger of being confused for the beloved Gerda; she is much cherished and respected by contributors to WP music articles, and when she disagrees with others she does it with grace and concision. Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Thread opened yesterday. If consensus is already so clear-cut, it doesn't require formal closure. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem, Nathan, is that there are two deeply entrenched views, neither of which is going to give way. Because there is no consensus to change, the status quo will remain. All that will happen is that positions will become more deeply entrenched than they were previously and tempers will become more frayed, leading to further snide accusations or sub-standard behavior. Sigh.... it'll just drag on pointlessly for another 10,000 words or so and become increasingly tiresome, divisive and polarising. Closure is probably the least painful pathway for all, despite the trite accusations of censorship and "stifling debate". - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

One minor point, Nathan: the thread was opened on 30 May, not yesterday. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Called to my attention, makes me smile. My point of view: an infobox was suggested, was improved, so was the template, suggestions to improve the article came up, nothing wrong with that, right? - The infobox will not be admitted to the article anytime soon, so what? - It took a few months until I was "converted" from being against infoxes to seeing that they are good for accessibility. The infobox has been described as disfiguring the article. That's how you can look at a ramp for the disabled disfiguring a building. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to again request that an uninvolved admin has a look at this and brings it to a close, please. The full discussion of Talk:The Rite of Spring#Infobox has ended in a whimper, albeitwith a very strong consensus to retain the status quo, but I think an admin would be best to close this always-contentious subject. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done SlimVirgin 23:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have?

Request for an admin to close after a 3 week RFC. Cross posted on AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done. Consensus unclear. Wait until the full month has passed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sega Genesis#RFC: "Sega Mega Drive" or "Sega Genesis" as the article title?

Request for uninvolved editor to speedy close this disruptive RFC per WP:SNOW started by an apparent single-purpose IP that has been blocked for canvassing. --B2C 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for permissions#Use of account creator

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for permissions#Use of account creator and close the discussion. Which ever way this is closed (except no consensus obviously) a change/clarification will need to be made at WP:Account creator, Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator, and (if it's closed that way) removal of account creator rights from some people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

American novelist stalemate

Request an uninvolved admin to close the discussion at Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate. Consensus at the talk page was not to hold a formal RFC on this question, but this discussion linked was nonetheless broadly notified at various relevant wikiprojects.

At issue is a stalemate around categorization of American novelists - some think they should be fully diffused, others disagree, so the result is now the head category has only 82, very famous novelists. I think most people agree the head cat should be empty, or contain all novelists. Both sides also seem to agree on the need for a broader RFC on the Category:Writers tree, but I'd like to at least close this one out so we can break the stalemate and move on to the RFC, especially given intense media scrutiny around the contents of this specific category, it doesn't look good to have only 82 names there.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

Talk:Eugene Plotkin#RfC page move: "Pajčin & Plotkin insider trading scheme"

Request an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at Talk:Eugene Plotkin#RfC page move: "Pajčin & Plotkin insider trading scheme". After 30 days, broad consensus was to move the page and a majority of editors agreed on Reebok Insider Trading Case as the appropriate new title, but there was some impassioned dissent from one editor. An objective pair of eyes would be greatly appreciated to summarize the consensus view and make the move. Factchecker25 (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a history of sock puppets at the page and a current request to check for sock puppets, so I'd think it best to wait. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me contextualize this comment. The so-called "history of sock puppets" on the page occurred in early 2012 and was promptly dealt with. It has no bearing on the present issue. I should also point out that Smallbones is the one editor who has been fighting against the consensus view on the page, engaging in personal attacks and edit warring. His request for a sock puppet investigation (which has not been endorsed) has simply been the latest ploy in a concerted effort to battle consensus. He was referred to ANI earlier at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive795#Smallbones_and_Eugene_Plotkin Once again, I would like to request that an uninvolved editor look at the RfC on the talk page of the article, summarize the consensus view, and close the RfC. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Rules for Fools#Failed proposal

Formal close needed on how to properly mark this page. The result is not clear cut so I don't think it can be closed by any of the discussion participants. SpinningSpark 11:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:BP#Survey on including Deepwater Horizon Spill content

This has been closed by the bot after 30 days, and now an uninvolved editor is needed to sum up consensus. I've listed people's responses in a note for the closing editor, in case it's helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:International System of Units#Proposed merge of SI base unit and SI derived unit

Would an uninvolved admin please close this merger discussion. My analysis is:

• The proposal to include International System of Units in the three-way merger was rejected.
• There was no consensus in respect of merging SI base unit and SI derived unit into a single article.

Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC on including the 2008 percentage of women's vote

Looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. Been a very debate article with many debated issues. Would help greatly if an admin closed this RFC. The RFC is now expired. Casprings (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please note the very biased phrasing of the RfC. Arzel (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:RJL#UK-specific deviations

Requesting an uninvolved admin to close the above. It was not an official RFC but more or less a straw poll to gauge consensus, though I am not sure that it ultimately has done so. However, it should be closed so we can see where it falls off. --Rschen7754 23:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of metropolitan areas of the United States#RfC: Should state names be included in article titles?

Could an uninvolved admin please close this RfC? DoctorKubla (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dodging a topic ban?

Could use a final assessment and ruling on this one from an uninvolved admin. I believe everyone who had something to say has had their say. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cheers (season 1)

There is already a consensus... or not... but I want people to look through comments before making conclusions and counting votes. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:The Young Ones (video game)

The consensus has already established. --George Ho (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)#RfC: Should this article and the episode list article comply with MOS:TV

No activity since 1 June 2013. --George Ho (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:MR#Deadmaus

Just come across this. Looks like there fairly obviously consensus and its a week old. Oddbodz (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)