Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:56, 5 February 2014 editWerieth (talk \| contribs)54,678 edits Revert to revision 594082259 dated 2014-02-05 18:43:34 by Werieth using popups ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:15, 9 January 2025 edit undoBluethricecreamman (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users4,181 edits →Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine: fixing a slight formatting errorTag: 2017 wikitext editor
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{backlog}}{{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}}
			\|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
	{{shortcut\|WP:ANRFC\|WP:AN/RFC}}</noinclude><includeonly>
			\|format= %%i
			\|age=4368
			\|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#Backlog\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion\|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure\|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions\|Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion#Old discussions\|Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#Holding cell\|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}

			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 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at ] <small>], ]</small> (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a ], and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at ]. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to ]. Thanks!</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
	:{{done}} Closed informally by ] after a bot removed the RfC tag as expired. I guess that means no consensus. Either way, with no more edits in over two weeks, the issue seems to have settled. --] (]) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' Zanhe only placed the discussion between a {{tl\|archive top}} and {{tl\|archive bottom}} template, but a summary of the discussion is still needed. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::I agree with {{user\|Armbrust}}'s assessment of the situation. A closure is beneficial because the issue keeps resurfacing as demonstrated by the multiple discussions (see Armbrust's comment ). ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	::::I got a message on my talk page asking me to summarize the outcome of this RFC. As Armbrust noted above, I merely added archive templates several weeks after the RfC became inactive and closed by a bot. As I was an active participant in the discussion, I don't think it's appropriate for me to summarize the outcome, but consensus is quite clear for anyone who cares to read the discussion and the votes. -] (]) 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Given that the conclusion is pretty evident, close seems to be sufficient but by all means if there is a non-involved closing word then that would be okay. ] (]) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

			]
	===NFCR discussion needing closure===
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''

			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.
	;Unclosed

	# ]
			'''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.
	# ]
			{{cot\|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
	# ]
			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}}.
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	{{cot}}
	----
	;Closed
	# ]
	#: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 15:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} ] (]) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	# ]
	#: {{done}} ] (]) 14:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
	{{cob}}		{{cob}}
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].
	:is the current list. ] (]) 17:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under ] - it would be helpful if an experienced admin could close this WP:RSN thread. There seems to be a fairly clear, but less than perfect consensus. It was opened January 9th and the last comments were January 12, so if it's not ready for a close now, by the time someone has time to look at it, it should be ripe. Thanks. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
	:'''Comment'' A bot archived it to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
	::I thought bot closure meant that what I see as a clear consensus could be put in the article, but the editor reverted my changes per the WP:RSN, so I guess we'll need an official close on this. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::The bot didn't "close" the discussion, it just archived it due to lack of activity. In either case though, I wouldn't expect that to have an effect on someone involved being able to close the discussion. However if someone objected to your close on the grounds that you did not correctly interpret the consensus, then yes you would need to come here I think. ] (]) 01:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for clarification. And he asked me to come here. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Carolmooredc}}Please be clear. You had already come here.
	:::::I merely stated that the bot archiving was irrelevant and that the bot's action did not put you in a position to declare that your view had prevailed in the discussion. Thanks. ]] 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::: Jan. 21 User:SPECIFICO wrote: ''If you still wish to pursue this, please request on AN that the archiving be undone, and await Admin close. There's no point to any involved editor trying to infer "consensus" -- thanks.'' <small>'''] (])</small>''' 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
	:{{notdone}}:A close would not help now. The text that was under discussion has changed significantly since the RfC was started. Some of the issues under discussion appear to be unresolved but if people are concerned about that it would be easier to start a new discussion that takes the current text as a starting point. To cap it all, the RfC is in a talk-page archive. ] (]) 18:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 8 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	RFC discussion must be closed. --] (]) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this image be present it the lede of this article, or even in the article at all?" Thanks, ] (]) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 January 2013)? ] generally runs for seven days, though this discussion is listed as an RfC. Thanks, ] (]) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Hello. I'm sorry that it took so long to talk to you about this; I just learned about this ANI.

	:I'm the one who called for the RfC. I did so because one editor has , and, since the change, that editor has been arguing that s/he did the right thing in regards to MOS:TM. In addition, someone did attempt to revert the article's title to the correct title twice, but the offending editor re-reverted the change both times.

	:The title of the article had been relatively stable from the time the article was created until the change; the only time that the article's title did change was when editors decided that the title should be in sentence case and not all caps. As you can see , most of the editors made the argument that the name should not have been changed because the use of Numb3rs was much more prevalent in reliable sources than the less common Numbers. I was pretty sure that most of the page's editors would have liked a third pair of eyes on the situation, so I filed the RfC. (The editor who we have been arguing with did suggest that we use a WP:RM to change the article's title back, but I could see that the relatively recent move from Numb3rs to Numbers (TV series) in itself.)

	:Honestly, I did not expect it to turn the RfC into another debate between that editor and me. (A full disclosure here, that editor and I have also been arguing the issue over at .)

	:If I have done anything wrong in the eyes of the administrators, I'm sorry. If not, what is the next step? ] (]) 21:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Hi {{user\|SciGal}}. You have done nothing wrong. You listed a move discussion as an RfC rather than at ]. Most move discussions are listed at ], but it is acceptable to list them as RfCs.<p>There were related discussions about this at ] (August 2012) and ] (October 2012), and there was no consensus that RfC couldn't also be used to move pages.<p>I think it is better to list move requests under ], where the RM tag is removed only when the discussion is closed, whereas many discussions listed under RfC are unclosed after the RfC tag is removed by the bot.<p>To answer your question, the next step is to wait for an admin to close the requested moves discussion. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

	*To the closer, please consider ] in your close. ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			<section end=Instructions/>
	===]===
			{{TOC limit\|4}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
			]

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	===]===
			* ]
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 27 December 2013)? The RfC is listed at ] which says: "Should Misplaced Pages ] in general, or on health and medical content?"<p>Please close the discussion after 26 January 2013. Thanks, ] (]) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			== Administrative discussions ==
	===] ===
			<!--
			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 29 October 2013)? There were several participants and some previous discussions, linked there. The strength of consensus is relevant to a dispute, see ]. Thanks, ] (]) 13:50, 21 January 2014 (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. *
	:Specifically, does this discussion constitute a clear consensus for the removal of "UK" from placenames (infoboxes etc) across the whole project, via mass edits? ] (]) 19:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->

			=== ]===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Seems uncontroversial after 18 days of running. --] (]) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
			===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}

			== Requests for comment ==
	===]===
			<!--
	I'm not sure I'm doing this right, but I'd like to try! lol... There was a proposal to condense the GQ section that has been idle for almost a week and a half... I'd like to have an uninvolved editor close the request... Thank you ] (]) 16:06, 28 January 2014 (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
	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 1 January 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (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. *
	===]===
			-->
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 January 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (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 21 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (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 28 December 2013)? The question posed was: "Should this page stay at its current name, move to ] or be split into two separate topics at each name?" Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

	===]===		=== ] ===
			{{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 31 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>
	Should this article be converted into a disambiguation page and split into the following articles:
	<br/>
	:::::Smoke testing -- A disambiguation page
	::::::] -- describing the use of smoke to test pipes
	::::::] -- looking for smoke on first power up
	::::::] -- testing of major functions before formal testing
	::::::] -- testing smoke machines
	</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

	===]===		=== ] ===
			{{Initiated\|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 January 2014)? According to , "Opinions from outside editors were overwhelmingly in support of the metric unit precedence." The disputed change was first made . There was a lengthy discussion beginning 1 January 2014 about units at ].<p>I ask the closing editor to combine the two related "Units" section and assess the consensus in both discussions. Otherwise, I ask that the closer mention in the close that he or she considered the previous discussion.<p>Given the robust discussion and the edit war, a formal close by an uninvolved editor would be helpful in recording the consensus. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{Initiated\|20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)}} slowed for a while ] (]) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "To be clear the content at issue is ". The participants have stated whether they support or oppose inclusion of the content. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	===]===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 January 2013)? Please see the subsection ] (initiated 15 January 2014)? The opening poster of the RfC wrote: <blockquote>Should the ''main'' tag also be used at the top of articles for purpose #2 (as discussed above -- to tag an article that is ''not'' the main article for its topic e.g. see ] ) or should it remain recommend only for its well-established purpose #1 to point to the main article ''only'' in summary sections elsewhere?</blockquote> The discussion is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			<!-- Place this line below the heading:
			{{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.
			-->

			== Deletion discussions ==
	===]===
			{{XFD backlog\|right}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 29 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	===]===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 January 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I suggest a one year moratorium on ] change discussions." Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			== Other types of closing requests ==
	===]===
			<!--
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 December 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Let's start a discussion on this RFC to reach consensus and set up the way for future editors.
			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.
	The question is: '''how should graphs on Misplaced Pages be created?'''</blockquote> Please consider the closed RfCs and in your close. These two related discussions were mentioned in the RfC. The latter close was contested and upheld at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (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. *
	===]===
			-->
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 January 2014)? The RfC is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
	===] and ]===
			{{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)
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] and ] (both initiated 16 January 2014)? Because the discussions are related, I recommend that the same closer assess the consensus in both discussions to ensure consistency. Thanks, ] (]) 10:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)\|done=yes}} Experienced closer requested. ―] ] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] Thanks, ] (]) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
			:{{close}} by editor {{ut\|S Marshall}}. ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)</small>

			===]===
	=== ] ===
			{{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)
	Some of the discussions at ] are over one month old and should be relisted or dispositioned. --] (]) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

	=== ] ===		===]===
			{{initiated\|7 November 2024}} Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an uninvolved editor please look at a rather complicated multi-page move, which was discussed in three successive sections of the ] talk page:
	*] -- a merge that was made without discussion for 7 days and without consensus
	*] -- a ] discussion that, due to the complexity of the multi-page move, left the page in the '''B'''old state (multi-pages moved) rather than the more normal post-BRD '''R'''evert state.
	*] -- a specific discussion on undoing the non-consensus move.
	Cheers. ] (]) 14:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

			* {{a note}} I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
	=== ] ===
	Can someone here close many a discussion? --] (]) 07:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

			===]===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. ] (] • ]) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
	Has gone over the 7 days. ] (]) 08:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	===]===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Admin needed to close this RFC. ] (]) 14:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:15, 9 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 27 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 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 93 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 73 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)

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

(Initiated 63 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:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

(Initiated 55 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC

(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 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	22	20	42
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	7	5	12
RfD	39	10	49
AfD	0	0	0

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 106 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

(Initiated 85 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 20:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

(Initiated 72 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

(Initiated 43 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Categories: