Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 09:48, 28 January 2014 editArmbrust (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,692 edits archive 2 sections← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:11, 28 January 2014 edit undoCarolmooredc (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →WP:RSN#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections: actual quote from editorNext edit →
Line 68:		Line 68:
	:::::{{ping\|Carolmooredc}}Please be clear. You had already come here.		:::::{{ping\|Carolmooredc}}Please be clear. You had already come here.
	:::::I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. ]] 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)		:::::I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. ]] 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
			:::::: Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: ''If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks.'' <small>'''] (])</small>''' 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===		===]===

Revision as of 11:11, 28 January 2014

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

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.

Shortcuts

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 (opened on or before 26 November 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 19 December 2024) 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. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

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

Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Closed informally by Zanhe after a bot removed the RfC tag as expired. I guess that means no consensus. Either way, with no more edits in over two weeks, the issue seems to have settled. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Zanhe only placed the discussion between a {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} template, but a summary of the discussion is still needed. Armbrust 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

NFCC discussion needing closure

is the current list. Werieth (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections

Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under Austrian economics/General sanctions - it would be helpful if an experienced admin could close this WP:RSN thread. There seems to be a fairly clear, but less than perfect consensus. It was opened January 9th and the last comments were January 12, so if it's not ready for a close now, by the time someone has time to look at it, it should be ripe. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

'Comment A bot archived it to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Removal of material with Ludwig von Mises Institute connections. Armbrust 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought bot closure meant that what I see as a clear consensus could be put in the article, but the editor reverted my changes per the WP:RSN, so I guess we'll need an official close on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The bot didn't "close" the discussion, it just archived it due to lack of activity. In either case though, I wouldn't expect that to have an effect on someone involved being able to close the discussion. However if someone objected to your close on the grounds that you did not correctly interpret the consensus, then yes you would need to come here I think. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. And he asked me to come here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc:Please be clear. You had already come here.

I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

At this diff Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Daily Mail#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daily Mail#RfC on adding substantial number of lawsuits (initiated 26 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Ought the list of lawsuits be greatly expanded, as listed above, for the reasons given in the posts suggesting them." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Thomas Jefferson/Archive 32#RfC: How should the statement of Jefferson's treatment of slaves be worded? (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? (initiated 15 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy#RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles. (initiated 14 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RFC: On the controversy of the pseudo-namespace shortcuts (initiated 19 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Knockout (violent game)#Change title

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Knockout (violent game)#Change title (initiated 8 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mayer Brown#RfC: Is the "Controversy in Russia" section appropriate?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mayer Brown#RfC: Is the "Controversy in Russia" section appropriate? (initiated 12 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 21#Category:Former_feminists

Discussion stalled since 6 January. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Outrage (2009 film)#WP:BLP

RFC discussion must be closed. --George Ho (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Futanari#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Futanari#Request for comment (initiated 19 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this image be present it the lede of this article, or even in the article at all?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sasanian Empire#Recommendations to Map workshop team

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sasanian Empire#Recommendations to Map workshop team (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alter ego#Singular focus on psychological usage, ignoring common usage

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alter ego#Singular focus on psychological usage, ignoring common usage (initiated 2 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

This article as is, is entirely focused on the psychological usage, and totally ignores the common usage of the phrase. I am not sure of the best way to resolve this. Maybe this should be a disambiguation page or, else, the page should explain both usages in the lede with two main sections for each usage?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Numbers (TV series)#RfC: What should we call this article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Numbers (TV series)#RfC: What should we call this article? (initiated 14 January 2013)? Misplaced Pages:Requested moves generally runs for seven days, though this discussion is listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry that it took so long to talk to you about this; I just learned about this ANI.

I'm the one who called for the RfC. I did so because one editor has changed the title of the show unilaterally without discussing it with the editors who work on the page first, and, since the change, that editor has been arguing that s/he did the right thing in regards to MOS:TM. In addition, someone did attempt to revert the article's title to the correct title twice, but the offending editor re-reverted the change both times.

The title of the article had been relatively stable from the time the article was created until the change; the only time that the article's title did change was when editors decided that the title should be in sentence case and not all caps. As you can see here, most of the editors made the argument that the name should not have been changed because the use of Numb3rs was much more prevalent in reliable sources than the less common Numbers. I was pretty sure that most of the page's editors would have liked a third pair of eyes on the situation, so I filed the RfC. (The editor who we have been arguing with did suggest that we use a WP:RM to change the article's title back, but I could see that the relatively recent move from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) was already controversial in itself.)

Honestly, I did not expect it to turn the RfC into another debate between that editor and me. (A full disclosure here, that editor and I have also been arguing the issue over at MOS:TM.)

If I have done anything wrong in the eyes of the administrators, I'm sorry. If not, what is the next step? SciGal (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date range redux (initiated 25 November 2013; relisted as an RfC 29 December 2013)? The last comment was made on 8 January 2013. The second poster in the discussion wrote:

Request to formally insert language that an 8-digit date range format be allowable for sport tenures. This was discussed ad nauseum to no firm resolution in April (see here)

A number of the participants have supported this editor's proposal based on a cursory review, though I don't know if it rises to the level of a consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox album#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox album#Proposed addition of a "format" parameter (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#On Orphan tags again

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#On Orphan tags again (initiated 23 December 2013)? The discussion's opening poster sought to overturn the decision at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page. There are other proposals at the discussion about how to handle orphaned articles, and there are opposing views at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#This rfC is disruptive and Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#This rfC is not disruptive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Username policy/RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/RFC (initiated 5 December 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion which says that this is " general discussion for purposes of a periodic review of the username policy and enforcement of same".

There are some concrete proposals there, such as at Misplaced Pages:Username policy/RFC#"Only edits are to AFC submission" which discusses whether "names that might otherwise be blockable should be given more leniency if their only edits are to articles for creation".

A closure could help in revising Misplaced Pages:Username policy if there is any consensus for any of the proposals. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer (initiated 27 December 2013)? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion which says: "Should Misplaced Pages provide a more prominent disclaimer in general, or on health and medical content?"

Please close the discussion after 26 January 2013. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dancingwiththestars09

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dancingwiththestars09 (initiated 18 December 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Laura Hale topic ban

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive258#Laura Hale topic ban (initiated 6 January 2014)? There may not be a consensus for the proposals there, but I note that the subject of the discussion posted at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Statement by LauraHale that:

I would be more than happy to accept a six month requirement that before I move any article to the main space that heavily relies on Spanish language sources, that it be vetted by a native language Spanish speaker who has read all the sources and checked the accuracy of my text against the article, and then have that person comment on the draft article talk page before moving it.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board#England, UK or just England? (initiated 29 October 2013)? There were several participants and some previous discussions, linked there. The strength of consensus is relevant to a dispute, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Angus Deayton. Thanks, Narrow Feint (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, does this discussion constitute a clear consensus for the removal of "UK" from placenames (infoboxes etc) across the whole project, via mass edits? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots to close - move requests!

Talk:Uroševac#Requested move 2
Closed by BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 22:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Emmett Brown#Requested move_2013
Talk:Friendly Fire#Requested move
Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The discussion is now at Talk:Friendly Fire (disambiguation)#Requested move. Armbrust 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Days of our Lives#Requested move_2013
Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 17:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Counting Stars (song)#Requested move 3
Closed by EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 11:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I participated in some, fwiw, but these have all been languishing for some time, having been open over a month. Red Slash 01:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 6#Category:Association football midfielder

Seems uncontroversial after 18 days of running. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Katy Perry#RfC: Whether she still identifies herself as a Christian

This RfC has gone a week, and it looks like the discussion has finished, but I think it needs a formal close. St Anselm (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 31#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

Discussion has stalled, and a consensus appears to have been reached. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)