| Revision as of 02:45, 27 October 2013 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,712 edits →Please relist or close WP:AfD/United States Capitol shooting incident (2013): comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:34, 27 October 2013 edit undoSmyth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers11,815 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of StyleNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| :'''Suggestion:''' Because ] opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, ''''']''''' covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, '']'' opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of ], '']'' questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", '']'' rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and '']'' rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. ] (]) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | :'''Suggestion:''' Because ] opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, ''''']''''' covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, '']'' opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of ], '']'' questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", '']'' rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and '']'' rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. ] (]) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{Done}}. I totally agree, and I have copied the above comment to the archive page. – ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
Revision as of 13:34, 27 October 2013
| 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 | |
The Requests for closure 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 remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.
Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week except in the case of WP:SNOW.
Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned.
- Notes about closing
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 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 articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.
Requests for closure
See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussionsMisplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style
IMHO the section headed Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? should be closed; discussion had stopped about 2 weeks ago except for User:Gothicfilm's recent contribution. The other sections on the same or related topics are still ongoing. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 145#Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?.
After an experienced editor assesses the consensus in the discussion, please either (i) move the discussion with your closing statement back to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style or (ii) close the discussion in the archive and announce the result on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Because the "should we yield?" thread opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, WT:MOS#Gender self-identification covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, Archive 146#Gender and direct quotations opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of MOS:IDENTITY, Archive 146#Inconsistent pronouns questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", WT:MOS#RfC on pronouns throughout life rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and WT:MOS#Gender, direct quotations and sic rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. -sche (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. I totally agree, and I have copied the above comment to the archive page. – Smyth\ 13:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2013/September#Commas in metro areas
A long an convoluted discussion affecting several hunderd articles. I can't see any clear consensus. Prefer admin closure please. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (second close request)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb (initiated 15 August 2013)? See my previous close request here.
The close by NE Ent (talk · contribs) was contested at User talk:NE Ent/Archive/2013/September#Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb by the RfC initiator, Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs); the subject, Joefromrandb (talk · contribs); and uninvolved editor Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs).
| Extended content |
|---|
There was no subsequent response from NE Ent (talk · contribs), and the discussion was archived. Recent RfCs have been closed and summarized by uninvolved administrators:
|
Cunard (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review
| 15 NFCR sections |
|---|
|
A Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review that needs closed. Werieth (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_on_pronouns_throughout_life
This RFC, triggered by the Manning controversy, has now been running for 1 month and is not receiving any new comments. Because of its sensitivity, I suggest that it is given a similar level of care to the Manning controversy itself. – Smyth\ 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?
This RfC was started on September 6h. The tag for this RfC seems to have been deleted. Can an admin please close? Thanks. GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#(entertainer)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#entertainer (initiated 31 August 2013)? The RfC was originally listed at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation#(entertainer) before being moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#entertainer. The questions posed were:
1) should we continue to encourage/allow the use of "(entertainer)" as a disambiguator in entertainment-related articles, and 2) if so, under what circumstances.
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism" (initiated 8 October 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The opening poster wrote:
This stems from a discussion at WP:NPOVN#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates - relevant discussions are also at WP:NPOVN#Politically Incorrect (blog) and Template talk:Islamophobia. The templates being discussed are Template:Islamophobia, Template:Racism topics and Template:Antisemitism. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Discussion now archived at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 110#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism". Armbrust 08:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
WT:MOSNUM#Imperial measurements
Would be grateful for someone with a measure of common sense to close this interminable discussion about the use of imperial units on wikipedia, which stems from the thorny question of whether in a few limited circumstances you should put miles before kilometres. I would also suggest a large dose of WP:TROUT all round, a suggestion that reprising this discussion on a monthly basis stops and perhaps a WP:RFCU as suggested at Talk:United Kingdom#Units dispute. 
I really can't believe what people argue over . Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg
This non-free content review needs an experienced closer. Discussion commenced on 27 June and there's been no new comments added since 19 August. Warning: Lotsa plenty of reading here. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 27#Category:Chefs by location
This discussion was started on 27 July 2013 (UTC); requesting closure by an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Merge
It seems that the content of this article has already been presented within Serbia_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Massacres. Still, this is controversial case which needs to be closed by administrator who is not involved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Mario Kart#Collapse or uncollapse characters table?
You can close it either right now or on 26 October 2013. Your choice. George Ho (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)
Article has been open for more than one week without relisting nor closure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Closed by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 02:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#RfC:_What_qualifies.3F
The discussion was closed by a non admin who is well known for holding views decidedly outside of the mainstream Misplaced Pages community, with a conclusion that I do not think accurately reflects the discussion and policies presented. I would request a non involved Admin review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)