Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mandruss (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 8 February 2017 (→RfCs: + Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Election summary in the lede). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 30 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

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC Closure review Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC Closure review Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 2919 days ago on 2 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles (Initiated 2922 days ago on 30 December 2016) (using the date from Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner due to the close relationship between the two discussions)? Thanks, — Godsy_CONT) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

RfCs

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 2984 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Preferences were in favor of a Green-Blue-Red, open-dashed-closed shackle, dotted-half full-full lock image (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:43, 8 February 2017 (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 2984 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 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)

Misplaced Pages talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 2955 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States Senate election in South Dakota, 2016#Request for Comment: Should Kurt Evans be listed as "Failed to Qualify"? (Initiated 2949 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Beheading in Islam#Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

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

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list

Would an experienced editor asses the consensus opinion on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list (Initiated 2930 days ago on 22 December 2016). It initially started out with voting and then escalated to a lot of people going back and forth and it is a little difficult to gage what the full consensus opinion. TAG (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC: Should predecessors and successors be included in officeholders' infoboxes? (Initiated 2943 days ago on 9 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime (Initiated 2939 days ago on 13 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player (Initiated 2938 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables (Initiated 2936 days ago on 16 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York#RFC: Should the lead feature information about New York City over information about New York State (Initiated 2938 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment - Article Rewrite

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar#Request for Comment - Article Rewrite (Initiated 2937 days ago on 15 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bipartisan Report#December 2016 Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bipartisan Report#December 2016 Request for Comment (Initiated 2941 days ago on 11 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Explanation of Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates (Initiated 2940 days ago on 12 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#"Official" accounts representing individuals as opposed to groups (Initiated 2948 days ago on 4 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 2934 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia#RfC: Should Putin's December 23 press conference statement be included or excluded?

Would some kind soul gently assess consensus and answer the question asked? (Initiated 2929 days ago on 23 December 2016) — JFG 20:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard#Grace VanderWaal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? (Initiated 2908 days ago on 13 January 2017) --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now archived at Misplaced Pages:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_18#Grace_VanderWaal. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milky Way#Request for comment

(Initiated 2934 days ago on 18 December 2016) Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC. Best Polyamorph (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• done Dan Koehl (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry but it was not done. I asked for the consensus to be assessed. So please could an uninvolved editor close this properly. Many thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done: non-involved editor closing as no consensus to overturn previous discussions (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel#Split

Discussion on splitting List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - initiated in 2014 with last comments added in early 2016. In my opinion there is a consensus to split, but since i initiated the discussion - i would like an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 2934 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2#Infobox image RfC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2#Infobox image RfC (Initiated 2925 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Albert Cashier#RFC: Gender

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Albert Cashier#RFC: Gender (Initiated 2924 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots (Initiated 2930 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs (Initiated 2924 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template (Initiated 2924 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Inside (video game)#RfC about the Theories header in the Plot section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Inside (video game)#RfC about the Theories header in the Plot section (Initiated 2923 days ago on 29 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources (Initiated 2930 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:List of fake news websites#Request for Comment - Inclusion of Infowars in this list

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of fake news websites#Request for Comment - Inclusion of Infowars in this list (Initiated 2935 days ago on 17 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead (Initiated 2932 days ago on 20 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center#RfC about addition of Ambassador Dermer's criticism of SPLC's list (Initiated 2930 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article? (Initiated 2935 days ago on 17 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas#RFC - Date formats

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christmas#RFC - Date formats (Initiated 0 days ago on 30 December 2024)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes (Initiated 2922 days ago on 30 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#RfC on "Cast and character" formatting

The RfC was ended by Legobot after the normal thirty days: consensus on the primary issue had been achieved well before that; but there is still disagreement upon the scope of the RfC - does the outcome apply only to the Star Trek: Discovery article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that this discussion has been moved to this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC:_Should_predecessors_and_successors_be_included_in_officeholders.27_infoboxes.3F

Needs closure from uninvolved editor. 20:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability

This needs closure from uninvolved editor. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• There is an existing discussion on this at WP:AN#Requesting three uninvolved admins to close RfC John from Idegon (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:User categories#Request_for_comment_on_our_proposed_policy_for_users_remaining_in_redlinked_categories

Opened on 6 Jan 2017. Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tinderbox_(Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees_album)#Request_for_comment_2017

Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)#Notable for a single event

There is some disagreement over the way forward, and as I have been involved it would help to have an uninvolved editor or admin assess consensus and agree closure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Election summary in the lede

Experienced and uninvolved close requested. Thanks. (Initiated 2913 days ago on 8 January 2017) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
    I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.
    Any thoughts on that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob₁₃ 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        • :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Marcocapelle, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. Schwede66 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 19#Category:Persecution by atheists

Is an uninvolved administrator willing to close this discussion? The discussion has become extremely lengthy already, in just a single week, and will only get lengthier when not closed, while afaics no new arguments are being added. I can't close it myself because I have contributed to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Template:Scratch Perverts

Please disposition Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 29#Template:Scratch Perverts, which has been relisted 3 times, and has been open for more than one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Administrative backlog