Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:36, 28 December 2016 editJFG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors53,874 edits Trump tweets →RfCs← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:12, 22 January 2025 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors256,282 edits →Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025: done 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}}
<!-- <!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->

{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
--><noinclude>
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }} {{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
] ]
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 22 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 256000 |maxsize = 256000
}}
}}{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=7200 |age=4368
|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close</nowiki> --> |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}} |header={{Aan}}
|headerlevel=4 |headerlevel=3
|maxarchsize=256000 |maxarchsize=256000
|minkeepthreads=0 |minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16 |numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}} }}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC|WP:RfCl}} {{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


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. <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 ]).
]
'''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 F 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.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Tl|Close}} or {{Tl|Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.</noinclude>
{{TOC limit|4}}


]
== Requests for closure ==
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
<includeonly>:''These requests for closure are ] from ].''</includeonly><!--


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.
Please add new requests to the bottom of the appropriate section! If none of the sections apply, you may need to add one, since the section heading may have been deleted or hidden. Thanks!


'''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}}
{{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:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
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}}.
<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->
{{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].


<section end=Instructions/>
===Administrative discussions===
{{TOC limit|4}}
===RfCs===
]
====]====
The talk page conversation has gotten way off topic and out of control with one or two editors keeping this alive with repeated posts about the merits of having award lists on Misplaced Pages. I tried to archive this myself, before understanding the specific rules about Requests for Closures, and it was immediately un-archived with more off topic posts about how Misplaced Pages should not have certain award lists. The talk page conversation has strayed away from the subject of the article and a lot of users have given up with the same people who are going around and around with the same posts. Can an uninvolved individual close and archive this. I would also recommend watching it for a short time afterwards as there is a high chance one of the original editors may try to unarchive it and keep the debate alive. -]<sup>]</sup> 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
====]====
* ]
Really need '''an administrator''' to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. ] (]) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
====]====
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|1 September 2016}}? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years: <blockquote>'''Note past discussions''' Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :], and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at ]. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: ] and just today at ]. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (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|3 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! &nbsp;Let a bot do it. &nbsp;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 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


=== ]===
====]====
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Unanimously opposed; it's snowing, someone please close this. ] (]) 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
*(involved comment) - I think it is reasonable to snow-close or procedural-close the original proposition, ''but'' to keep the "alternative proposal" by Jbh open. Maybe refactor the whole page or something. I made a comment to that effect . ]<sup>]</sup> 14:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
*The alternative proposal should certainly remain open, yes. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
*I'll close the first part. ] (]) 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
**{{partly done}} by BethNaught. The other part of the RfC (which should probably run at least a full month) was {{Initiated|22 November 2016}}. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


====]==== == Requests for comment ==
<!--
I initiated this RfC yesterday to deal with a situation already extensively debated on the Talk Page and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Over the past 30 hours the RfC has seen a great deal of attention, with twenty statements of opposition/support/neutrality with regard to the central question. It has reached the point where insults are being traded and the same of issues are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps it is too early to bring it to a close, but I feel that it has served its purpose. Would an '''experienced editor''' who is well versed in Misplaced Pages policy and determining consensus please take a look and, if they see fit, bring it to a close. ] (]) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (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
==== ] ====
Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. ] (]) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (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. ***
Just for an update, I relisted the discussion because waiting time for a volunteer would be longer than I thought. I can still welcome the closure. ] (]) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
-->


=== ] ===
==== ] ====
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. ] (]) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC) {{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:In looking it over, a closure at this point could only come out "no consensus". Of the options presented only two have enough support to consider; the first of these has about as much opposition as support (as of this writing), and the other has less support (despite lack of active opposition) than the option that has both noteworthy support and opposition. So, they kind of just cancel each other out, especially given that sometimes the same parties are supporting/opposing multiple options. The matter is one of editorial judgement, not policy or source analysis. An obvious option is also missing: that the matter should be left to editorial judgement on a per-article basis. It may be more practical to re-RfC this with combined and clarified options, and "advertise" the discussion neutrally at ] and if necessary ]. While the matter is "minor" in the sense of impact on an article, it potentially affects every bio article about a married person, except in cases where the marriage is still extant along with the parties to it and there was only one marriage. This means it would have major site-wide impact despite the narrowness of the quetsion, and thus that consensus should be quite clear before it is acted upon. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 07:44, 23 December 2016 (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 uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, ] (]) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<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|26 October 2016}}? Please consider the closed RfCs ] and ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|4 November 2016|done=yes|nac=yes}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) {{Initiated|00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)|done=no}}, RFC expired weeks ago. ] (]) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{done|Closed with consensus for second alternative <small>(])</small> ] ] ] 17:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)}}


=== ] ===
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|30 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (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)


=== 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|23 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (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.


-->
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|29 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


== Deletion discussions ==
====]====
{{XFD backlog|right}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 November 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|03:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 November 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|09:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|30 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|15:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 November 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|20 November 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|20:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)|type=cfd|done=yes}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|22 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|Timrollpickering}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)</small>


=== 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|29 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
====]====
<!--
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|29 October 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (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.
====]====
After discussing with the closing admin for the AFD and DRV, could an editor close the straw vote and redirect the page? ] (]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': {{Initiated|4 December 2016}}. I think an admin ought to close this one, after one AfD and a DRV recently. The topic is (suprisingly) very contentious. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:00, 20 December 2016 (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. ***
====]====
-->
The discussion may need evaluation. --] (]) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{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. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm requesting closure, though closure is a little too soon. Nevertheless, I'm doing this just in case. --] (]) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
* Probably should wait a couple more weeks. ] (]) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (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)
This article has been a recurrent hotbed of controversy, especially of claims of bias against the subject by WP regulars and for the subject by newcomers who appear to be fans of the subject. The RfC in question proposed two wording choices, and an alternative third one was later added. Supporters of the second of the original alternatives are declaring amongst themselves that they have a consensus for that version, despite multiple policy and guideline objections raised to it (thus the third option). I think it should be administratively assessed, because it's presently being treated as a head-counting vote instead of an analysis. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 07:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


====]==== ===]===
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|23 November 2016}}? Thank you, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 23:45, 24 December 2016 (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|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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|14 November 2016}}? Thanks, ] (]) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (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)
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess the consensus there? {{Initiated|28 November 2016}} — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


===]===
=== Merger discussions ===
{{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)
==== ] ====
Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
=== Deletion discussions ===
==== ] ====
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -] 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. ] (]) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
===== ] =====
Please disposition ], which has been open since early December 2016. --] (]) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (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)
No substantial backlog right now, but it's quite likely that the backlog will grow again at some point in time. ] (]) 01:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
: The backlog has grown to about one month (plus one extremely old one listed below). ]] 03:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC) :{{close}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<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}}
This discussion has stayed open for nearly six months! ({{initiated|8 June 2016|type=xfd}}) ]] 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:12, 22 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.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    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

    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 40 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 106 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 86 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)

    information 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 76 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 75 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 27 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)

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

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 0 8 8
    TfD 0 0 0 6 6
    MfD 0 0 0 4 4
    FfD 0 0 2 18 20
    RfD 0 0 0 93 93
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

    (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 19 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 12 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 8 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

     Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 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 250 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 119 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 85 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:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

    (Initiated 25 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)

    Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

    (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

    (Initiated 12 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

    (Initiated 8 days ago on 14 January 2025) 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. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

     Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  09:12, 22 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 Add topic