| Revision as of 03:26, 30 September 2013 editGeorge Ho (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users118,234 edits add new req← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:20, 30 September 2013 edit undoChris troutman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers54,800 edits →Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content: in response to User talk:Cunard, User:SlimVirgin, and User:ArmbrustNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| ::::Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC) | ::::Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::As I understand it, the issue was about the use of a self-published source in a BLP to add something about YouTube stats. Using a self-published source in a BLP is a violation of ]. Therefore someone removed the source about six weeks ago. Chris started a discussion and there was no consensus to restore the source (three for, two against). Chris then closed the RfC against his own position. I haven't looked at this in any detail, so if my understanding of it is wrong, I apologize, but if it's correct what remains to be decided? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC) | :::::As I understand it, the issue was about the use of a self-published source in a BLP to add something about YouTube stats. Using a self-published source in a BLP is a violation of ]. Therefore someone removed the source about six weeks ago. Chris started a discussion and there was no consensus to restore the source (three for, two against). Chris then closed the RfC against his own position. I haven't looked at this in any detail, so if my understanding of it is wrong, I apologize, but if it's correct what remains to be decided? ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::{{Reply to|Armbrust}} I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on ], this question had been initially raised at ] in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. <font face="copperplate gothic light">] (])</font> 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
Revision as of 06:20, 30 September 2013
| 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 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; where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed sooner than one week 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.
- 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 discussionsMisplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style
IMHO the section headed Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? should be closed; discussion had stopped about 2 weeks ago except for User:Gothicfilm's recent contribution. The other sections on the same or related topics are still ongoing. Chris Smowton (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 145#Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?.
After an experienced editor assesses the consensus in the discussion, please either (i) move the discussion with your closing statement back to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style or (ii) close the discussion in the archive and announce the result on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Because the "should we yield?" thread opened with a loaded question rather than a proposal to change the MOS in any specific/concrete way, and because several discussions covering the same part of the MOS (but, in contrast to the "yield" thread, making concrete proposals for change) were started while the "yield" thread was ongoing or shortly after it closed (and because later discussions eclipse earlier ones), I humbly suggest that the "yield" thread has already been 'closed' (meaning, shut so that further contributions are not accepted) by the archive bot, and that any further 'closure' (meaning inference of a 'consensus' for a concrete change to the MOS from the discussion) is probably not possible. In particular, WT:MOS#Gender self-identification covers substantially the same ground as the "yield" thread. To a much lesser extent, Archive 146#Gender and direct quotations opens by questioning a different sentence but the same general section/sentiment of MOS:IDENTITY, Archive 146#Inconsistent pronouns questions whether or not to keep pronouns consistent within an article, which is semi-relevant to the "yield" OP's question of whether or not to say "'she' fathered a child", WT:MOS#RfC on pronouns throughout life rehashes the "inconsistent pronouns" discussion, and WT:MOS#Gender, direct quotations and sic rehashes the "direct quotations" discussion. -sche (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article)
This RfC is now 28 days old and in need of an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- {{done}} KrakatoaKatie 04:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested a review of this closure here. Please don't archive this section quite yet, thanks. GabeMc 09:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- This section can now be archived since the above discussion was closed. There is no discussion review ready to be closed and the above OP request does not relate to a request to close a discussion review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- The closure of the discussion was undone by KrakatoaKatie, therefore this shouldn't be archived. Armbrust 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Armbrust is correct and this discussion is still in need of a closure by an uninvolved admin. GabeMc 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- The closure of the discussion was undone by KrakatoaKatie, therefore this shouldn't be archived. Armbrust 02:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- This section can now be archived since the above discussion was closed. There is no discussion review ready to be closed and the above OP request does not relate to a request to close a discussion review. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested a review of this closure here. Please don't archive this section quite yet, thanks. GabeMc 09:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox Chinese#RfC: Should the template group both Chinese Hán (for writing Chinese language) and Vietnamese nôm (for writing Vietnamese language) names and terms as one identity "Han-Nom", "Han (and) Nom"? (initiated 3 July 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus (initiated 9 September 2013)? The discussion was a review of Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2013 August#Thirty Seconds to Mars, which was a review of Talk:Thirty Seconds to Mars#Requested move #2.
When closing the discussion, please add a comment to Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2013 August#Thirty Seconds to Mars linking to the ANI discussion and explaining your close of the ANI review. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Two up for closure at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper
It's time to finally close the long-running discussions at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Requested move (again) (which was removed from WP:RM for some reason) and Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Section break, start RFC. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roundup (herbicide)#RfC: Un-merge from Glyphosate? (initiated 20 August 2013)? There were about five previous merge discussions (dating from 2007–2012), where merges were implemented and reverted, so I advise a formal close of this broadly attended discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Today's articles for improvement#Calling for a vote on the format that we propose
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Today's articles for improvement#Calling for a vote on the format that we propose (initiated 18 August 2013)? The proposer said voting would close "0:00 September 5, 2013". I am listing this discussion here because it has been listed at Template:Centralized discussion for over three weeks. Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Tran#Vidstatsx sourced content (initiated 9 August 2013)?
- 02:07, 9 August 2013 – 117Avenue (talk · contribs) removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article.
03:06, 9 August 2013 – Chris troutman (talk · contribs) reverted the removal.
03:26, 12 August 2013 – 117Avenue (talk · contribs) removed vidstatsx.com reference from the article a second time per WP:BLPREMOVE.
Issues I would like a close to address:
- The vidstatsx.com reference had been in the article before the current dispute. See for example reference #9 of this 19 June 2013 version of the article. If there is no consensus in the RfC, should it be restored because the stable version included it? Does WP:BLPREMOVE apply in which case a "no consensus" result defaults to excluding the vidstatsx.com reference? If the consensus is determined to include or exclude the source, then the above questions are moot points and do not need to be addressed in the close.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Done by Legobot. SlimVirgin 21:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not done, Legobot maybe can remove the expired RFC template, but it can't determine the consensus of a discussion (if it exists at all). Armbrust 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was closed on 22 September as "no clear consensus" by Chris Troutman (he didn't sign, which is why I confused it with Legobot). Are you disagreeing with the closure, or is that adequate? SlimVirgin 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. Armbrust 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the issue was about the use of a self-published source in a BLP to add something about YouTube stats. Using a self-published source in a BLP is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Therefore someone removed the source about six weeks ago. Chris started a discussion and there was no consensus to restore the source (three for, two against). Chris then closed the RfC against his own position. I haven't looked at this in any detail, so if my understanding of it is wrong, I apologize, but if it's correct what remains to be decided? SlimVirgin 19:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Armbrust: I apologize if I've violated common practices about RfCs. Legobot closed the discussion after 30 days although editor responses dropped off much earlier. I then marked it closed with no consensus since I felt that extending the RfC would not likely result in achieving clear consensus and I couldn't fairly assess in my own favor. I still desire to have a real resolution to the problem (can we or can we not use Vidstatsx statistics) but not enough editors seem to want to help provide an answer. As I mentioned on Talk:Natalie Tran, this question had been initially raised at WP:RSN in July 2012 to no avail. Certainly any administrator could overrule me, re-open the discussion, etc. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Chris Troutman initiated that discussion, and I don't think he should close this contentious issue as no consensus. Armbrust 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was closed on 22 September as "no clear consensus" by Chris Troutman (he didn't sign, which is why I confused it with Legobot). Are you disagreeing with the closure, or is that adequate? SlimVirgin 18:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not done, Legobot maybe can remove the expired RFC template, but it can't determine the consensus of a discussion (if it exists at all). Armbrust 02:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Commas in metro areas
A long an convoluted discussion affecting several hunderd articles. I can't see any clear consensus. Prefer admin closure please. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Request_for_Comment_on_Proposal_to_Merge_Wikiprojects
I posted this RfC on 19 September 2013 and think it would benefit from administrative closure any time after 26 September 2013. It touches on WP:FRINGE and on the governance of WikiProjects. Comments seem to be petering out, with less broad participation than I had hoped. Still, given the strong feelings one can see displayed on the talk page, both in the initial discussions and, to a lesser degree, in the RfC comments below the initial discussions, I think an uninvolved admin's closing comments would go a long way toward focusing discussions after closure. David in DC (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#consultingbyrpm.com.2Fblog -- personal blog of economist Robert Murphy
Discussion was started 15 September and positions are well laid out. A related RSN, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gene-callahan.blogspot.com (also involving a personal blog used as a citation on Ludwig von Mises Institute) was closed today (rather on 23 September UTC) with a non-RS determination. The discussed issues matched those presented and argued here, as the Murphy blog. – S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to close this, but I think there may be objections as I closed the Gene Callahan blog RfC which is related, so I'll defer to another experienced editor to evaluate this RfC. I, JethroBT 18:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please reconsider. 1. The issues between the Callahan blog & the Murphy blog are the same. 2. Getting a different result (e.g., allowing the Murphy blog to remain) from someone else would be an inconsistent application of policy and create a BALANCE problem on the page. 3. Your closing of the Callahan blog RSN did not produce a WP:Closure review#Challenging a closing. So I would not expect a consistent closure decision, based on the same policy, to produce a challenge on the Murphy blog. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the entire matter is moot and the RSN thread is deadlocked by several editors talking past one another. It should be allowed to die of old age and a new thread can be opened if anyone still wishes to articulate concerns relevant to the current article text and citations. There would be no benefit to a close in this thread which is no longer applicable to current text. It would waste the time of any Admin who dove into the tangle for closing. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1. If the Murphy personal blog had been removed as a citation on the article page, then the issue would be moot. 2. At the same time, Specifico says a new thread should be opened -- why? To go through the same process?? This point demonstrates that the matter is not moot. 3. Specifico says editors are talking past each other -- a request was posted on the thread for Specifico to explain how the removal of the Callahan blog contents changed anything as to using Murphy's personal blog as RS. No answer as yet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Srich you have developed quite a tendency for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I stated the RSN "thread is no longer applicable to the current text." One line beneath this you ask me why I suggest a new thread should be opened. And then, next line, you don't seem to understand my concern that editors are talking past one another? What's up with that? At any rate this is not the place to badger or instruct the Admins on how to behave. SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- 1. If the Murphy personal blog had been removed as a citation on the article page, then the issue would be moot. 2. At the same time, Specifico says a new thread should be opened -- why? To go through the same process?? This point demonstrates that the matter is not moot. 3. Specifico says editors are talking past each other -- a request was posted on the thread for Specifico to explain how the removal of the Callahan blog contents changed anything as to using Murphy's personal blog as RS. No answer as yet. – S. Rich (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the entire matter is moot and the RSN thread is deadlocked by several editors talking past one another. It should be allowed to die of old age and a new thread can be opened if anyone still wishes to articulate concerns relevant to the current article text and citations. There would be no benefit to a close in this thread which is no longer applicable to current text. It would waste the time of any Admin who dove into the tangle for closing. SPECIFICO talk 17:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please reconsider. 1. The issues between the Callahan blog & the Murphy blog are the same. 2. Getting a different result (e.g., allowing the Murphy blog to remain) from someone else would be an inconsistent application of policy and create a BALANCE problem on the page. 3. Your closing of the Callahan blog RSN did not produce a WP:Closure review#Challenging a closing. So I would not expect a consistent closure decision, based on the same policy, to produce a challenge on the Murphy blog. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146
An RfC regarding the Manual of Style instructions regarding names (MOS:IDENTITY) has now fallen off WT:MOS without closure. (auto archived) OSborn contribs. 20:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Lucio Dalla#RFC on discussion above
I posted this RFC, which was removed when it expired. There wasn't really a consensus but I attempted to edit the page based on the RFC discussion, avoiding my own preferred wording. This edit was reverted without discussion by another editor (who had participated in discussion earlier on the talk page but not in the RFC). I'd therefore like to request an uninvolved editor takes a look. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Rujm el-Hiri on NPOVN
Could an uninvolved editor/administrator assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion on NPOVN? A formal closure is required since the consensus remains unclear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 9#Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States
Stale CfD that's 2 1/2 weeks old. All have voted "merge" or "delete", and with only a few articles, all of which are in a sister category to Category:Political positions of Vice Presidents of the United States such as Category:Political positions of United States presidents or Category:Political positions of United States Senators, merge and delete would effectively be same outcome pbp 20:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Corporation in titles
RfC that has run for 28 days, appears to support a change to WP:MOSLAW on article titles for court cases. Although I believe that consensus is clear, I'm involved and had earlier closed on a (then) unanimous !vote, so it would be better if an uninvolved admin/editor closes the discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page#Requested move
Requested moves are open for 7 days; that time is up. Pretty obviously the consensus is not to move, but a proper admin closure would be better for this more high-profile discussion. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 17:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Closed by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 15:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC
There have been no comments at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RfC for over a week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin
I believe it is past time to close this, which, if seven days is the usual time, has passed a while ago. Nevertheless, it very much needs a neutral closer who is entirely uninvolved, as it is very contentious. If one thinks that the discussion should be open longer, feel free to remove the request and let it be until a later date. RGloucester — ☎ 13:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Bradley Manning#Postpone move discussion
October move discussion will be open in at least two hours. Is there a consensus yet? --George Ho (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)