| Revision as of 08:54, 6 May 2021 editKrakkos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers23,569 edits →Requests for comment: Requesting closure of Talk:Goths#RfC← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:55, 6 May 2021 edit undoKrakkos (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers23,569 edits →Requests for comment: Requesting closure of Talk:Goths#RFC on article focusNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| ====]==== | ====]==== | ||
| {{initiated|17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)}} The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. ] (]) 08:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC) | {{initiated|17:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)}} The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. ] (]) 08:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ====]==== | |||
| {{initiated|08:03, 01 April 2021 (UTC)}} The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. ] (]) 08:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== | ==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== | ||
Revision as of 08:55, 6 May 2021
| 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 8 December 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 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:Great Barrington Declaration#RfC: "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them"
(Initiated 1384 days ago on 24 March 2021) The page has a very contentious history and the outcome of the RfC is not 100% clear. By the way, I am aware that the section heading sucks, and it's my own fault. JBchrch (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence#RfC_on_SENS_controversy_section
(Initiated 1384 days ago on 25 March 2021) I opened this RfC, and a recent, related fringe noticeboard thread that spun out has just closed. Since the discussion was not unanimous, I was involved in both threads, and this was my first time opening an RfC, I thought I should request a formal close. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket#Rugbyfan22's proposal
(Initiated 1376 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:Goths#RfC
(Initiated 1377 days ago on 31 March 2021) The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Goths#RFC on article focus
(Initiated 1377 days ago on 1 April 2021) The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 11 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 47 | 0 | 47 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Latter Day Saint denominations by belief
(Initiated 1385 days ago on 24 March 2021) There are only three editors active in closing CfDs, and all of them are involved in this discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Theresa May#Infobox photo
(Initiated 1679 days ago on 3 June 2020) Needs an uninvolved close, among one of the shorter discussions. Thanks. Spy-cicle💥 01:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Chinese Communist Party#Question on Controversy section
(Initiated 1426 days ago on 10 February 2021) I was involved in the discussion, though it's very close. The discussion largely focused on whether to keep a "controversy" section within the page for Chinese Communist Party or whether it would be better to split it off into its own article. There has not been discussion in over a month. If an experienced editor could take a look and provide closure, it would be helpful for moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#All_options,_redux
(Initiated 1402 days ago on 7 March 2021) - An experienced editor familiar with policies is invited to close this well attended (but slightly disrupted) discussion and determine if there is consensus for any of the presented options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:2021 Atlanta spa shootings#Victims_list
(Initiated 1391 days ago on 18 March 2021) Could someone, preferably an admin, close the discussion on whether or not to include the names of victims for the 2021 Atlanta spa shooting WikiVirusC 23:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article"
(Initiated 1383 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)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_338#Facts.Org.cn_(Truth_on_Falun_Gong)
(Initiated 1351 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)