Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:02, 29 December 2016

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 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

• WP:ANRFC
• WP:AN/RFC
• WP:RfCl

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.

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 28 November 2024); 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 very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

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 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.

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 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.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Requests for closure

Administrative discussions

RfCs

Talk:Karl Wolff#Awards removal

The talk page conversation has gotten way off topic and out of control with one or two editors keeping this alive with repeated posts about the merits of having award lists on Misplaced Pages. I tried to archive this myself, before understanding the specific rules about Requests for Closures, and it was immediately un-archived with more off topic posts about how Misplaced Pages should not have certain award lists. The talk page conversation has strayed away from the subject of the article and a lot of users have given up with the same people who are going around and around with the same posts. Can an uninvolved individual close and archive this. I would also recommend watching it for a short time afterwards as there is a high chance one of the original editors may try to unarchive it and keep the debate alive. -O.R. 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#Request for comment on “vulture” descriptor

Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 3040 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:

Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 3008 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park (Initiated 2990 days ago on 21 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right

Unanimously opposed; it's snowing, someone please close this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• (involved comment) - I think it is reasonable to snow-close or procedural-close the original proposition, but to keep the "alternative proposal" by Jbh open. Maybe refactor the whole page or something. I made a comment to that effect here. Tigraan 14:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• The alternative proposal should certainly remain open, yes. ~ Rob₁₃ 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
• I'll close the first part. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Partly done by BethNaught. The other part of the RfC (which should probably run at least a full month) was (Initiated 2958 days ago on 22 November 2016). Tigraan 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Fidel Castro#Request for Comment

I initiated this RfC yesterday to deal with a situation already extensively debated on the Talk Page and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Over the past 30 hours the RfC has seen a great deal of attention, with twenty statements of opposition/support/neutrality with regard to the central question. It has reached the point where insults are being traded and the same of issues are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps it is too early to bring it to a close, but I feel that it has served its purpose. Would an experienced editor who is well versed in Misplaced Pages policy and determining consensus please take a look and, if they see fit, bring it to a close. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This RfC has been open for just short of thirty days now, and I think that there is a clear consensus that has emerged. The conversation appears to have been exhausted, with no new posts for many days. It would be great if an experienced editor could take a look at this one and wrap it up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016

Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just for an update, I relisted the discussion because waiting time for a volunteer would be longer than I thought. I can still welcome the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#End

Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In looking it over, a closure at this point could only come out "no consensus". Of the options presented only two have enough support to consider; the first of these has about as much opposition as support (as of this writing), and the other has less support (despite lack of active opposition) than the option that has both noteworthy support and opposition. So, they kind of just cancel each other out, especially given that sometimes the same parties are supporting/opposing multiple options. The matter is one of editorial judgement, not policy or source analysis. An obvious option is also missing: that the matter should be left to editorial judgement on a per-article basis. It may be more practical to re-RfC this with combined and clarified options, and "advertise" the discussion neutrally at WP:VPP and if necessary WP:CENT. While the matter is "minor" in the sense of impact on an article, it potentially affects every bio article about a married person, except in cases where the marriage is still extant along with the parties to it and there was only one marriage. This means it would have major site-wide impact despite the narrowness of the quetsion, and thus that consensus should be quite clear before it is acted upon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#Redirect proposal for Knight's Cross winners

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement? (Initiated 2985 days ago on 26 October 2016)? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#RfC: Is the language biased? and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content (Initiated 2981 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead (Initiated 2988 days ago on 23 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions? (Initiated 2982 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark (Initiated 2977 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be? (Initiated 2977 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides? (Initiated 2981 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image (Initiated 2977 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion (Initiated 2960 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table? (Initiated 2989 days ago on 22 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access locks: Visual Design RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Access locks: Visual Design RFC (Initiated 2982 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Access Locks: Citation Template Behaviour RFC (Initiated 2982 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Rozen Maiden characters#Straw Vote Redirect Dec 2016

After discussing with the closing admin for the AFD and DRV, could an editor close the straw vote and redirect the page? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: (Initiated 2946 days ago on 4 December 2016). I think an admin ought to close this one, after one AfD and a DRV recently. The topic is (suprisingly) very contentious. Tigraan 14:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Songs#What is "single"?

The discussion may need evaluation. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#‎RfC: Proposing the third moratorium

I'm requesting closure, though closure is a little too soon. Nevertheless, I'm doing this just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Probably should wait a couple more weeks. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frank Gaffney#RfC: Which version of the first sentence is preferable?

This article has been a recurrent hotbed of controversy, especially of claims of bias against the subject by WP regulars and for the subject by newcomers who appear to be fans of the subject. The RfC in question proposed two wording choices, and an alternative third one was later added. Supporters of the second of the original alternatives are declaring amongst themselves that they have a consensus for that version, despite multiple policy and guideline objections raised to it (thus the third option). I think it should be administratively assessed, because it's presently being treated as a head-counting vote instead of an analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Afro engineering#Afro engineering

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Afro engineering#RfC: Where should the content of afro engineering be merged to? (Initiated 2957 days ago on 23 November 2016)? Thank you, — Godsy_CONT) 23:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)#RfC for above proposal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)#RfC for above proposal (Initiated 2966 days ago on 14 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should social network links be added to the External links section?

Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess the consensus there? (Initiated 2952 days ago on 28 November 2016) — JFG 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lars von Trier#RfC: What should be done about User:Augstn's edits?

Though the subject is important, the RfC probably isn't necessary. AndrewOne (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should social network links be added to the External links section?

30 days old and de-listed. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussions

Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion#Old discussions

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 December 11#File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg

Please disposition Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2016 December 11#File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg, which has been open since early December 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The backlog has grown to about one month (plus one extremely old one listed below). Pppery 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8#Roman Empire establishments (1st century and earlier)

This discussion has stayed open for nearly six months! ((Initiated 3125 days ago on 8 June 2016)) Pppery 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog