This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Armbrust (talk | contribs) at 10:52, 21 December 2013 (→Talk:Liao Dynasty#RfC: Bohai or Balhae: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:52, 21 December 2013 by Armbrust (talk | contribs) (→Talk:Liao Dynasty#RfC: Bohai or Balhae: done)(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 | |
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.
Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 25 November 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 18 December 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.
Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement 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.
- Notes about closing
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.
Requests for closure
See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussionsTemplate talk:non-free review#RfC: Should the non-free review template be added to articles?
The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: The discussion was opened on October 25 and there has been no discussion since November 9. The RfC question is (posed by User:SlimVirgin): should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCR open discussions
We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg
Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
- Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
- Closed by Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:
- Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
- Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
- Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)
My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).
The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Edward Snowden#added videos
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward Snowden#added videos (initiated 16 October 2013; see the subsection at Talk:Edward Snowden#RfC: Should the links to the four Sam Adams Award videos be deleted?). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey (initiated 1 December 2013)? See the subsection Talk:United States#Survey. WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Liao Dynasty#RfC: Bohai or Balhae
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Liao Dynasty#RfC: Bohai or Balhae (initiated 10 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's going to pose a bit of a problem. While the discussion at this talk page was reasonable & informative, the best solution offered, prima facie, was to take the issue to Talk: Balhae & obtain an opinion there. After all, usage & transliteration should be consistent across Misplaced Pages. One glance at the talk page there shows that this very subject -- Bohai vs. Balhae -- is hotly disputed, & not likely to be resolved soon. Anyone wanting to resolve this issue one way or the other would best start by building a consensus at Talk: Balhae first, but what do I know? -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Done 
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates (initiated 7 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables" (initiated 9 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included? (initiated 28 October 2013)? Please see the 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC) comment by 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs) at the bottom of the discussion: "...I suggest we bring in somebody uninvolved to close out the RfC, and determine if we have enough of a consensus, or not." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (initiated 18 October 2013)? Please consider the previous RfCs Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 in your closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Merger proposal
Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus and close this merge discussion? Thanks,--Cúchullain /c 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 25#Category:Rape_victims
Please can an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 25#Category:Rape_victims?
It has been opened for nearly 2 months, and discussion is now sporadic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Torpedo_bombers
Discussion stalled since 18 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#Category:Royal_lovers
Discussion stalled since 8 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 22
There are a bunch of uncontroversial closes to be made in this month-old batch of categories. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Now only Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_22#Category:Horse_burials needs closure from this page. Armbrust 10:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Islamophobic incidents#Merge to Persecution of Muslims
This was raised October 3rd by an indefinitely blocked editor. It has 3 supports. One by someone now indefinitely banned from the topic area, one today by an obvious IP sock, and one other from TheRedPenOfDoom. Also 3 oppose !votes - I haven't !voted myself. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)