Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 25 February 2015 (→Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:39, 25 February 2015 by Collect (talk | contribs) (→Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

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

    This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot 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.

    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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 25 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

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves § Backlog, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

    I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion backlog

    Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:

    Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ? (Initiated 3657 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh (Initiated 3677 days ago on 1 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages (Initiated 3663 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8

    Seven discussions still open. Erpert 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division

    Discussion has been ongoing for two months and it's only been getting more heated. No sign of consensus for merging in sight. (Initiated 3670 days ago on 8 December 2014) Alakzi (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey#Lead image for the page

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Jersey City, New Jersey#Lead image for the page (Initiated 3643 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War#RfC, best way of categorising groups (Initiated 3652 days ago on 26 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#Request for comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia#Request for comment (Initiated 3643 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences

    This is a discussion on a topic that has, in the past, proved so controversial that general sanctions are in force. For that reason, and because of the general sanctions, it would be very useful for us to actually have an external editor judge whether consensus has been reached or not - as opposed to the discussion just being removed mysteriously from the page with no explanation given beyond an edit summary claiming that no admin is needed. The risk at present is that people might act on a consensus that they believe might exist in this discussion, only to be sanctioned under the general sanctions if admins at WP:AN disagree. It may be that no admin is formally needed to close the discussion - any uninvolved editor can close the discussion after all - but it would be entirely false to say that a close would serve no purpose or is not needed. It really is.

    So would an uninvolved editor please close the discussion. If you feel the point is obvious, then great! In that case, please close it with a statement of the obvious. But it does need to be closed. Kahastok talk 23:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    As the initiator of the discussion in question, I concur with the need for an uninvolved editor or admin to review the discussion and determine whether a consensus has indeed been reached. The whole purpose of this discussion, as Kahastok touched upon, was to determine a consensus for the use of metric vs. imperial units in the infobox of various personnel in association football. Without getting into too much detail here, the desire is to have a WikiProject-wide guideline for the use of height and weight units and how they would be inserted without the need for a discussion on every article which might be UK related as presently required by WP:GS/UKU. The need for an uninvolved editor or admin is to avoid any appearance of the process being railroaded by a few editors. — Jkudlick cs 00:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    This has now been archived here, but a close remains relevant. Would somebody please close it? Kahastok talk 09:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC: linking pre- and post-nominals

    This RfC has only been going on for three weeks, but the discussion has well and truly ended, with no contribution for more than a week. (Also, it's a continuation of a previous discussion, and so the issue has been dragging on a long time.) I thought the consensus was clear to exclude the text under discussion, but I checked with the lone "include" !voter and he or she didn't think so. StAnselm (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

    states : This RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges. It is recommended that this RfC be closed by an Admin - one who has no previous involvement in the AfC process. This RfC for an emergency measure has run for 11 days and participation has tailed off; a consensus appears to have been reached so would an uninvolved admin please consider closing it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    From here at WP:AN:

    Would an admin assess the consensus the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script (initiated 5 February 2015)? According to this post at WP:ANRFC, this is an "RfC for an emergency measure". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    You mean to assess if there is a clear consensus? Despite this being an emergency measure, the RfC itself says "this RfC will run for 30 days or until a clear consensus emerges" so it should probably be allowed to continue to run the 30 days if there is no clear consensus. BTW, I'm seeing !votes on 1st February so I think the 5 February date must be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you for reviewing the discussion and correcting the start day. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    Cunard (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

    I see that an involved party (namely, the user making the original proposal) has taken it upon himself to close the RfC even though he is *not* uninvolved, the RfC has only run for 15 of the normal 30 days and the proposal is controversial. I believe this should be reverted at once, but would prefer not to become involved in an edit war by reverting it myself. Comments? K7L (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages

    I started this discussion, and I was expecting an automatic closure because I didn't know how the system worked. It was automatically archived. Is it too late? − Thisismyrofl (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of the Closing for a WP:RFC for America: Imagine the World Without Her (Initiated 3623 days ago on 24 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Request for review of closure at AN/I

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Request for review of closure at AN/I (Initiated 3608 days ago on 8 February 2015)? A discussion participant wrote: "Since there appears to be no agreement between myself and involved admins, I would like to request closure by an uninvolved admin." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#RfC:_should_the_policy_extend_harassment_to_include_posting_ANY_other_accounts_on_ANY_other_websites

    RFC finished a while back and nobody's commented for around a week. Can an admin please assess consensus and close? Bosstopher (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment

    Would an an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment after February 16 at 00:16 UTC. (Initiated 3601 days ago on 15 February 2015) Note that the discussion is over 40,000 words. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 02:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

    Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox (Initiated 3638 days ago on 9 January 2015)? Please consider the closed RfCs Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 18#RfC on successor/predecessor where a district is not reasonably viewed as the same after redistricting (Initiated 6 May 2014) and Template talk:Succession box#RfC (Initiated 26 November 2014) in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This is covered in Kraxler's request below where the argument that a close where the closer finds strong arguments against a proposal is not valid, although the policies and guidelines specify that a closer may due so. The Successionbox close is not at issue as the infobox != successionbox. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:George Zimmerman#RfC: Should the police record section be reduced

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Zimmerman#RfC: Should the police record section be reduced (Initiated 3636 days ago on 11 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Economic growth#Request for comments

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Economic growth#Request for comments (Initiated 3636 days ago on 11 January 2015)? The opening poster wrote: "Which version of the income equality section more accurately reflects the findings of the peer reviewed literature reviews, Marek's or Ellen's?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Magnum Crimen#Questions related to basic editorial rules, validity of the text changes, and civilty

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Magnum Crimen#Questions related to basic editorial rules, validity of the text changes, and civilty (Initiated 3637 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Arab Winter#Change article title?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Arab Winter#Change article title? (Initiated 3627 days ago on 20 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Dabangg#Proposed merge with Chulbul Pandey

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dabangg#Proposed merge with Chulbul Pandey (Initiated 3639 days ago on 8 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Libertarianism#RfC: Should this article minimize, but not remove, libertarian socialism?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Libertarianism#RfC: Should this article minimize, but not remove, libertarian socialism? (Initiated 3631 days ago on 16 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Template talk:Prostitution in Canada#changing "Anti-prostitution" and "pro-prostitution" headers?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Prostitution in Canada#changing "Anti-prostitution" and "pro-prostitution" headers? (Initiated 3628 days ago on 19 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Public Ivy#Remove Public Ivy from college and university article leads?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Public Ivy#Remove Public Ivy from college and university article leads? (Initiated 3656 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#RfC: should the policy extend harassment to include posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment#RfC: should the policy extend harassment to include posting ANY other accounts on ANY other websites? (Initiated 3637 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC: WP:SAWW Lead vs Body

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#RfC: WP:SAWW Lead vs Body (Initiated 3637 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Turn the MoodBar back on

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 118#Turn the MoodBar back on (Initiated 3643 days ago on 4 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    The consensus seems clear, but from the page history it seems that this was never advertised as an RfC. As such, I'm not sure if a close would be helpful here, since it could be challenged on the grounds of needing input from a wider section of the community before a site-wide change. Any thoughts on closing with this rationale, and/or reopening the discussion with the RfC template attached? Sunrise (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 26 January 2015

    Would an uninvolved administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? Much obliged. RGloucester — ☎ 05:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22

    This thread, which eilicited substantial discussion and polling, has been auto-archived without closure. In fairness to all and to avoid repeating discussion of these issues in the future, an Admin is needed to undo the archiving and evaluate consensus in order to resolve this matter. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Doctor#Proposed redirect

    —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy keep#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect?

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Speedy keep#Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? (Initiated 3652 days ago on 26 December 2014) Thanks, Deadbeef 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 19

    Would an admin look at these three DRV discussions, close them and eventually re-close (or relist wit an appropriate rationale) the three relevant AfDs? The situation requires an immediate action, as the AfD closes were vacated and the three AfDs are "virtually" reopened, and, citing one editor, "AfD and DRV running on the same article at the same time is just crazy". Cavarrone 07:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

    Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox

    Would an uninvolved administrator please assess consensus and close this discussion? Thank you. Kraxler (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

    The RfC was closed with a faulty rationale by User:JzG. Could someby have another look at it. I added a comment there to make clear what I find fault with. Kraxler (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oppose as the closure was fine except the proposer thinks "arguments against are rather strong" is an invalid close. The proposer now thinks he can unilaterally void the prior RfC by I hereby give notice that the previous "consensus" is no further recognized as such. You can't eat your cake and have it too. I suggest we abide by WP:CONSENSUS and recognize that a closer may note the arguments against are rather strong without facing this sort of request (noting the closer JzG was not notified of this action) Collect (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Category: