Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 19 December 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Closure requests/Archive 3) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Heads up

There's a WP:PROPOSAL at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. It's only been open for six days so far, but I thought I'd drop by and say that we'll be needing someone to summarize the results of the discussion next month. There have already been about 350 comments posted with about 1.2 tomats of text, so I suppose this is also a friendly reminder that the most reliable way to avoid getting stuck with closing a huge discussion is to go !vote in it. ;-) Alternatively, some closers like to read along as discussions happen, so they don't have to read a book-length in one sitting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The bot pulled the RFC tag almost 24 hours ago, so I've officially listed it at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests#Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding the doing/working tag

I've noticed that closers have recently not been using the {{doing}} or {{working}} tag recently. It would be helpful if folks who are watching this page to close discussions could remember to do that so that we don't end up duplicating work. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Relists

If people here are generally of the view that a relist means that a closure request ought to be archived, then perhaps someone should add {{relisted to the list of archive prefixes. Personally, I don't really consider relisting as resolving a closure request, given that a relist isn't a closure and a relisted discussion can still be closed at any time. CC: Redrose64, who pinged me to say I should mark a relist for archiving. SilverLocust 💬 09:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

What I meant was that your post would leave the request on the page indefinitely. As shown at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Closure requests (if you uncollapse the "Technical instructions for closers" block), ClueBot III will only archive a thread if it detects one or more of certain templates in the thread. Specifically, they are: {{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{done}},{{Done}},{{DONE}},{{already done}},{{Already done}},{{not done}},{{Not done}},{{notdone}},{{close}},{{Close}},{{nd}},{{tick}} (case-sensitive). Your post used none of those, so it would have been ignored by ClueBot III. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I know. I wasn't trying to archive the request because the discussion was not closed. SilverLocust 💬 09:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd probably be minded to archive them: a relist reflects someone's judgment that the discussion isn't ready for closure (the same meaning as "not done"), and XfDs/RMs generally don't need to be here unless they're unusually stale. But it's definitely a trade-off. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Clarifying point 1?

Point 1 at the top of the page currently states:

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

However, for someone who is WP:INVOLVED (especially the author of the RfC), closing the discussion is highly discouraged even if the consensus is clear. Closure requests by involved editors have been nonetheless been denied on this basis (e.g. this request by the RfC's author). should point 1 by amended to clarify this?

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear, except if you are involved. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)