This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aseleste (talk | contribs) at 13:25, 25 May 2021 (→top: edit: link: internal: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions->Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure x1 (silence at talk page)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:25, 25 May 2021 by Aseleste (talk | contribs) (→top: edit: link: internal: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions->Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure x1 (silence at talk page))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, or Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.| 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, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
The Closure requests 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 appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.
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 earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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 from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.
Requests for closure
See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, 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, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old businessAdministrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Austria–North Macedonia relations#Request for Comment
(Initiated 1478 days ago on 13 December 2020) Long overdue, but probably a good idea to formally close this RfC given the subject area. The subject of the RfC was whether or not to include information about the 2020 Vienna attack in this article. --Griboski (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket#Rugbyfan22's proposal
(Initiated 1369 days ago on 1 April 2021) There's been a lot of contention over the cricket notability guidelines, with large numbers of AfDs recently causing much discussion within the project and outside of the project, and the RfC period has just ended. I'm requesting a formal closure from someone uninvolved in the discussion and who hasn't been majorly involved in the discussions at WP:NSPORTS as we're keen as a project to potentially implement the proposal, or work on different changes if not implemented. Further details on the proposal can be found above the RfC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Argentina_national_football_team_results_(2020–present)#RFC:Format_of_Table
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 10 April 2021) Will an uninvolved experienced editor please close this RFC? This seems to be a close call, and some of the editors have been contentious in the past, so that an administrative close might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Roderic O'Gorman#Request for Comment on subheading title wording
(Initiated 1357 days ago on 13 April 2021) Hi. An RfC on the wording of an article heading was opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 13 April, and it has had no additional input since 9 May. Could an uninvolved admin or editor drop by and close it, please? Thanks in advance. Bastun 23:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Undisclosed alternate accounts
(Initiated 1354 days ago on 15 April 2021) Well-advertised on T:CENT, this RfC has important policy implications that will benefit from a formal closure. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my view, that discussion intersects with Trust & Safety and the current anti-harassment RFC to such a large extent that it should either be closed by Maggie Dennis personally, or by a panel that includes her, or by an independent community member who has received her feedback prior to closing.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Right, and various policies and proposals try to do the same. They're almost all community policies, made and enforced. This is the same; it's an issue about amending a community policy, discussed by volunteers, and should be closed by any suitable community member, the same as any other discussion. If the WMF wants to setup a Board policy on this and thinks the community's views will be helpful, they could read the discussion or the summary of the consensus reached (ie, 'the close'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Second Cold War#Term or event?
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 19 April 2021) Uninvolved editor needed please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Woman#RfC: Lead image
(Initiated 1347 days ago on 23 April 2021)
I am requesting a formal administrator close of this RfC which follows years of contentious discussions. To avoid a WP:BADNAC, an administrator close is needed when The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_WikiLeaks
(Initiated 1328 days ago on 12 May 2021) Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC when the time for closure is due and/or the discussion is no longer active. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. The ruling is likely to be controversial. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 34 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 28 | 28 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2021 April 27#File:TheWire28.jpg
(Initiated 1342 days ago on 27 April 2021) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Age of Empires III#Merger proposal
(Initiated 1482 days ago on 9 December 2020) Quite an old merger discussion, that could to with an uninvolved close. Thanks. Spy-cicle💥 08:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article"
(Initiated 1375 days ago on 26 March 2021) Note to closer: there were also two other relevant discussions, a BRFA (which was put on hold pending a closure to this discussion) and a conversation at Shortdesc helper talk (same situation there). — Goszei (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Removal_of_"UK"_from_location_field_in_infoboxes
(Initiated 1360 days ago on 10 April 2021) Not a formal RFC, but this discussion attracted plenty of attention anyway. It has been open for over a month now with no new comments since the end of April. -- Calidum 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 338#Facts.Org.cn (Truth on Falun Gong)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 26 April 2021) The discussion regarded the reliability of two related sources (as well as whether or not the sources should be blacklisted). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Redirect Candice Brown?
(Initiated 1336 days ago on 4 May 2021) The discussion went stale for almost two weeks. Uninvolved editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)