Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:33, 22 September 2014 editCunard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users41,089 edits →Requests for closure: close requests← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:57, 10 January 2025 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,971 edits →Deletion discussions: fix
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{adminbacklog}}{{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.
	]
	'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''

			] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
	Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal ] is 30 days (opened on or before '''{{#time:j\|-30 days}} {{#time:F\|-30 days}} {{#time:Y\|-30 days}}'''); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

			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.
	]
	'''If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.'''

			] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
	Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree 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.

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

			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.
	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.

			] '''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'''.
	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.

			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.
	{{TOC limit\|3}}

			]
	== Requests for closure ==
			'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
	</noinclude>
	{{See also\|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Backlog\|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion\|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure\|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions\|Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion#Old discussions\|Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#Holding cell\|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
	<!--Please add new request to the bottom of the page! Thanks!-->

			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.
	=== ] ===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>As a side-effect of using ] to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for ] will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult ] to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
	:This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
	::'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:27, 2 September 2014 (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.
	=== ] ===
			{{cot\|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			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}}.
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
			{{cob}}
	:{{notdone}} The categories have already been de-populated (even before the RfC started, it appears), and redirects to the new category already implemented, which is consistent with the consensus there, albeit participation was low. A formal close does not seem necessary here. ]] 18:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
			'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].
	::I withdraw this closure request. Thank you for reviewing this discussion, I JethroBT. ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			<section end=Instructions/>
	=== ] ===
			{{TOC limit\|4}}
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
			]

			== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
	=== ] ===
			* ]
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at ]. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
			* ]
	#] (initiated 17 September 2012)
			* ]
	#] (initiated 24 July 2013)
			* ]
	#] (initiated 18 August 2013)
	#] ~~(initiated 18 August 2013)~~		* ]
			* ]
	#] (initiated 17 September 2013)
	#] ~~(initiated 20 September 2013)~~		* ]
			* ]
	#] (initiated 2 October 2013)
	#] (initiated 2 October 2013)
	#] (initiated 31 October 2013)
	#] (initiated 23 November 2013)
	#] (initiated 3 December 2013)
	#] and ] (initiated 27 February 2014)
	#] (initiated 8 May 2014)
	#] (initiated 10 May 2014)
	#] (initiated 2 June 2014)
	#] (initiated 25 June 2014)
	#] (initiated 30 June 2014)
	#] (initiated 1 July 2014)
	#] (2 July 2014)
	Here are discussions with the ] closer:
	#] and ] (initiated 31 October 2013)
	#] and ] (initiated 11 November 2013)
	#] and ] (initiated 12 February 2014)
	#] and ] (initiated 19 May 2014)
	Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
	:There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.] (]) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	: I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. ] (]) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
	:: It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. ] (]) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

			== Administrative discussions ==
	=== ] ===
			<!--
	Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. ] (]) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
			Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)
	: Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. ] (]) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

			Please ensure you add the {{initiated\|date here}} template when placing a request here
	=== ] ===
	Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by ] in article space? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
	:Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:07, 5 September 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. *
	=== ] ===
			Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
	Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by ] to ease the topic ban? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ]===
	=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
	:'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:46, 10 September 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 ==
	=== ] ===
			<!--
	Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at ] (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! ] (]) 17:43, 7 September 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
	===]===
	This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ]] 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
	*<s>Please do '''not''' close until (at least) ] is concluded. --] (]) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)</s>
	**The SPI is finished now, and this can be closed by an uninvolved administrator any time now. Thanks! --] (]) 20:31, 20 September 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. *
	===]===
			-->
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	Even though this from over a month ago, there are still a couple of discussions here that haven't been closed yet. ] (]) 05:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
	This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. <small>'''] (])'''</small> 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
	:Premature request. ] (]) 23:09, 21 September 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)
			:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
			:'''] ''''']''''' , ] ] <small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>

			=== ] ===
	This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all ''Game of Thrones'' episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at ] and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven editors have logged their responses to this RfC. ] (]) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (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)

	===]===		=== ] ===
			{{Initiated\|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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 4 August 2014)? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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 15 August 2014)? See the subsection ] (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===		=== ] ===
			{{Initiated\| 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should the lede contain the following phrase:
	{{Quotation\|He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the ] and ] alphabets.}}</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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 at ] (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>]'s maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?</blockquote> Please consider the earlier discussion ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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 16 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
			=== ] ===
			{{initiated\|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===]===
			{{initiated\|1 January 2025\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== ] ===
	===] and ]===
			{{initiated\|31 December 2024\|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 September 2014) and ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? ] may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (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 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does by ] help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the , , or some other wording best?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			== Other types of closing requests ==
	===]===
			<!--
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the ] articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?
			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.
	A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?

			* 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. *
	Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: ].</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 August 2014)? The consensus appears to be against the opening poster. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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 experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 13 August 2014)? The RfC's opening poster wrote: "Should Italian translation of the name be written in the lead since there is a separate section ." Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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)
	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 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)
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

			=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
	===]===
			{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|2147483647}}
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection ] (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should there be a mention of ] (SLC) on the ] (CF) article or not? Concretely, ():<p>...</blockquote>Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 7 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should ''The Simpsons Movie'' be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection ] (initiated 17 August 2014): <blockquote>Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 21 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
	:'''Current Text''': "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
	I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
	:'''Proposal''': "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
	Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 September 2014)? ] may be applicable. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 August 2014)? ] may be applicable. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014‎.<p>The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at ]. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 August 2014)?<p>The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at ]. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 July 2014)?<p>The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at ]. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to ]. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 8 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 August 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 18 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 September 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

	===]===
	Would an admin review ] (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on , the user has a spent a lot of time at ]. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:57, 10 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 28 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 26 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 94 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 74 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 65 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 56 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 48 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 34 days ago on 7 December 2024) slowed for a while Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 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	17	9	26
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	7	8	15
RfD	34	15	49
AfD	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 21 days ago on 20 December 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

(Initiated 9 days ago on 1 January 2025) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 December 2024) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (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 107 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 73 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 64 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 44 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: