Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:41, 7 December 2013 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →Requests for closure: +← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:36, 23 January 2025 edit undoBluethricecreamman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,337 edits →Requests for comment Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{noticeboard links \| style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; \| titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; \| groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}<!--
			<!--
	----------------------------------------------------------
			-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	New entries go down at the BOTTOM of this page and not here.
			New entries go down at the BOTTOM of this page and not up here.
	----------------------------------------------------------
			-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	--></noinclude><includeonly>{{TOC limit\|3}}</includeonly><noinclude>
			-->
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			{{redirect\|WP:CR\|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
	\| archiveheader = {{aan}}
			{{redirect\|WP:ANC\|text=You may be looking for ]}}
	\| algo = old(40d)
			{{Noticeboard links \| style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; \| titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; \| groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
	\| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d
			]
	\| counter = 7
			{{Archive basics
	\| maxarchivesize = 500K
			\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
	\| archiveheader =
			\|counter = 37
	\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
	\| minthreadsleft = 0
			\|maxsize = 256000
	}}		}}
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
	{{archives\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot II\|age=40}}</noinclude>
			\|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
	<noinclude>
			\|format= %%i
	{{shortcut\|WP:ANRFC\|WP:AN/RFC}}</noinclude>
			\|age=4368
	<includeonly>
			\|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{notdone,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{tick,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
			\|header={{Aan}}
			\|headerlevel=3
			\|maxarchsize=256000
			\|minkeepthreads=0
			\|numberstart=16
			}}{{Archives\|auto=short\|search=yes\|bot=ClueBot III}}
			{{Shortcut\|WP:CR\|WP:RFCL\|WP:ANRFC}}

			<section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).
	==Requests for closure==
	:''This section is ] from ].''</includeonly>
	<noinclude>The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] 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.

			] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
	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 '''{{#time:j\|-30 days}} {{#time:F\|-30 days}} {{#time:Y\|-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 if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after '''{{#time:j\|-7 days}} {{#time:F\|-7 days}} {{#time:Y\|-7 days}}''') except in the case of ].

			Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, ] to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
	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 ] at ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See ] for previous closure reviews.

			] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
	;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.

			On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. '''Do not continue the discussion here'''.
	A ] 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 ] and ]—see ] and ] for details.

			There is no fixed length for a formal ] (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
	{{TOC limit\|3}}

			] '''When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure'''.
	==Requests for closure==
	</noinclude>
	{{seealso\|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion\|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions}}

			Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{tl\|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

			]
	===]===
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection ] (among other proposals). Thanks, ] (]) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
	:Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 October 2013)? See ] and the request for closure at ].<p>Also, there are two sections titled "Matthew Bryden" at ]. I have not removed either of them because I'm unsure which one has the more up-to-date material. Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

			Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if ]. You should be familiar with all ] that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the ] page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
	===]===
	The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --] (]) 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 ]): should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? -- ]]. 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

			'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
	===] open discussions===
			{{cot\|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
	We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to ] if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:
			Please append {{tlx\|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx\|Close}} or {{tlx\|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx\|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx\|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx\|Initiated}} template with {{para\|done\|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx\|Already done}}, {{tlx\|Close}}, {{tlx\|Done}} {{tlx\|Not done}}, and {{tlx\|Resolved}}.
			{{cob}}
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

			<section end=Instructions/>
	# ]
			{{TOC limit\|4}}
	#: {{close}} by {{user\|Werieth}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
	# ]		]
	#: {{close}} by {{user\|Werieth}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{close}} by {{user\|Werieth}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{close}} by {{user\|‎Sven Manguard}}. -- ]]. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
	# ]

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	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. -- ]]. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
	===]===
			<!--
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Do the ] and ] articles constitute a POV fork, should they be merged, and if they should be merged, under what breed name should they be merged - the original name (Mini Aussie) or the ]-recognized name (Mini American)?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 7 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself!  Let a bot do it.  Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
	===]===
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

			=== ]===
	=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Open for over four weeks including relisting. ] (]) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
			===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

			== Requests for comment ==
	=== ] ===
			<!--
	Open for several weeks. ] (]) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	=== ] ===
	Activity involved in this incident ended on Tuesday, November 19th and conversation on that continues on ] involves the rationale for and against these content changes. Discussion should be moved to Talk Pages. <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
	===] and ]===
			-->
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:
	:#] (initiated 24 August 2013)
	:#] (initiated 22 October 2013)
	:#] (initiated 22 October 2013)
	My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (], ], and ]) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute ]. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).<p>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, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

			===] ===
	===]===
			{{Initiated\|11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 October 2013; see ])? The question posed was: "If English has become the most commonly spoken tongue among Jews and the primary language of communication between Jews of different countries today, can it be referred to as their lingua franca?" ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
			:would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. ] (]) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{Initiated\|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Related RfCs were closed by {{user\|Mdann52}} at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{Initiated\|00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)\|done=no}}, RFC expired weeks ago. ] (]) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	If an early close would be beneficial, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 November 2013)? See ] and ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|08:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC}} Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ ] (]) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
	This has been running since 17 November. No-one seems able to call a halt to it. Consensus seems pretty much set, but occasional !votes do still dribble in. It ought to be uncontroversial. Even so it will take an admin with a clear head and a decent ability to summaries a rationale. Please let us not have a verdict of No Consensus! ] ] 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|19:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
	Please could a level-headed, scrupulously uninvolved administrator close this rather acrimonious discussion before it degenerates further. Based on recent discussions including some of the participants, it will be taken to DRV if there is a hint of prior involvement, even from several years ago. Thanks. ] (]) 13:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	:{{close}} by {{admin\|Ymblanter}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	=== Please close ] ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	] and ] seem to be on ]. Can someone disposition this on their behalf, or let me know if I should take this to ]? --] (]) 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
			<!-- Place this line below the heading:
	:{{not done}} There is nothing to close. You have the choice: you either wait for Plastikspork's answer or take it to DRV. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
			{{Initiated\|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
			If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a \|type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. \|type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Initiated/doc for a list of codes.

			-->
	===Madeleine McCann's right eye===
	:''See ]''
	This is a request that an uninvolved editor or admin, and someone not normally involved in non-free content review, evaluate the disputed closure (linked above) of a discussion about ]. It would also help if the closer were someone familiar with the breadth of coverage the ] attracted in the UK and Portugal.

			== Deletion discussions ==
	The image is a close-up shot of the distinctive mark on Madeleine's right eye, used in of the article, which discusses her and the significance of the eye image. We already use a ] as the main image (there are no free images of her), but the mark on the eye is not easy to see, so someone uploaded the close-up shot of it in 2007 to use in the section that discusses the eye. It's something that's more appropriate to show than describe.
			{{XFD backlog\|right}}
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd\|done=yes}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{Done}} ] (]/]) 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	{{U\|Werieth}} removed the image in October, arguing that it violated the ]. I believe Werieth's argument is that, because we have an image of Madeleine at the top of the page, we don't need to reproduce a portion of that image to highlight the eye.
			{{initiated\|03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{ping\|HouseBlaster}} {{relisted}}. ] (]) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	Whether the eye is discussed in the article speaks to whether the image is the subject of commentary (see , point 9, of the guideline), and whether it might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). It may also have a bearing on whether the ] (as opposed to guideline) is satisfied: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
			{{initiated\|09:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	Werieth took the issue to non-free content review (), where it seemed (to me) that there was no consensus to remove it. {{U\|ТимофейЛееСуда}} has now closed it as consensus to remove. I asked him to reconsider , but he stands by the closure, so I'm now requesting an independent review, if anyone's willing. Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
			{{initiated\|15:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)\|type=cfd\|done=yes}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{close}} by editor {{ut\|Timrollpickering}}. ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|15 January 2025\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

			== Other types of closing requests ==
			<!--
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here.

			* PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. *
			-->

			===]===
			{{initiated\|16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)}} Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at {{slink\|Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software}}? Thank you. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|29 October 2024}} There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{Initiated\|10:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=rm}} – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of ] which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.

			There are, however, points of disagreement but ''the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.''

			I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.

			Cheers, ] (]) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|23:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. ] (]/]) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|15:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)}} Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure <span style="background:#F3F3F3; color:inherit; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)}} Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. ] (]) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. ] (]) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

			===]===
			{{initiated\|13:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)\|type=rm\|done=yes}} Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. ] (]) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{close}}. ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>09:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

			=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

Latest revision as of 23:36, 23 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

Shortcuts

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

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

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Technical instructions for closers
Please append `{{Doing}}` to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with `{{Close}}` or `{{Done}}` and an optional note, and consider sending a `{{Ping}}` to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply 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}}`.

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply 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}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 41 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 108 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

(Initiated 87 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

(Initiated 78 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

(Initiated 77 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

(Initiated 28 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#RfC_on_Taylor_Lorenz's_comments_on_Brian_Thompson's_murder

(Initiated 33 days ago on 21 December 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	23	23
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	2	20	22
RfD	0	75	75
AfD	0	8	8

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 December 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 December 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster:

Relisted. ToThAc (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10#WP:DISNEY categories

(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 15#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories

(Initiated 9 days ago on 15 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

(Initiated 251 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 121 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 87 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Dundas railway station, Sydney#Requested move 25 December 2024

(Initiated 29 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.

There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.

I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.

Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Categories:

Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages