Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia 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 20:42, 17 March 2020 editBait30 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users9,148 edits remove per admin suggestion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:15, 9 January 2025 edit undoBluethricecreamman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,172 edits →Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Science-Based_Medicine: fixing a slight formatting errorTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}} {{admin backlog}}
<!-- <!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Line 5: Line 5:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--> -->
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
{{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 = 29 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 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=4368 |age=4368
|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{xXxX</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}} }}{{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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a ]. <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 ]).


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
]
'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''


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.
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 a discussion opens, unless the outcome is ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
On average, it takes two or three weeks after the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by ''not'' requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.


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


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.
Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and ''do not use this board to continue the discussion in question''.


] '''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'''.
If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters '''on the closer's talk page''' instead, and, ''if necessary'', request a ] at the ]. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.


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.
See ] for previous closure reviews.


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


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. 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.


'''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.
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.
{{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}}.
{{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].


<section end=Instructions/>
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{tl|Closing}} or {{tl|Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{tl|Close}} or {{tl|Done}} and an optional note. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{tl|Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{tl|Initiated}} template with <tt>|done=yes</tt>. ] will ] requests marked with {{tl|Close}}, {{tl|Done}}, and {{tl|Not done}}.
{{TOC limit|4}} {{TOC limit|4}}
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
== Requests for closure ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

== 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
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!


*** 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 -->
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings|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 add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->


=== ]===
=== Administrative discussions ===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
==== ] ====
=== ] ===
{{Initiated|11 February 2020}} I would appreciate if an experienced editor could please assess the consensus at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 07:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
{{initiated|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading ====
===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


=== RfCs === == Requests for comment ==
<!-- <!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top) 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 Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
-->


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
==== ] ====
-->
{{Initiated|21:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)}} Pretty old discussion and needs to be closed. --] (] • ]) 10:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{Initiated|00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC) {{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:NB: the discussion has now been archived to ] ] ] ] 23:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
::I've unarchived the RfC. ] (]) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


===] ===
====]====
{{Initiated|12:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 02:01, 9 February 2020 (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)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


=== ] ===
====]====
{{Initiated|12:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)|type=RfC}} I'm requesting that an experienced editor please advise on how to move forward with this merge proposal. ] (]) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (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)}}
{{Initiated|23:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Please consider in your close ], where there is disagreement about the consensus. Thanks, ] (]) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (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)
{{Initiated|01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
==== ] ====
{{Initiated|04:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Could an uninvolved admin please assess consensus and close the RfC on this page? There hasn't been active discussion in some time, and it has run for a month. ]&nbsp;<small>]</small> 18:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC) {{Initiated|20:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)}} slowed for a while ] (]) 06:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
{{Initiated|22:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (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.
{{Initiated|05:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)|type=RfC}}
Any uninvolved editor can assess the consensus of this RfC. --] (] • ]) 11:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|22:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|22:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an uninvolved sysop (or otherwise experienced editor) please assess the consensus? We've had a good discussion, with many good suggestions having been worked into the proposed naming convention change. I think this is now stable; everybody who is interested in the topic appears to have had their say. As the topic has a huge history going back to 2007 and there's been a lot of controversy about it in the past, there's a bit of reading to do; it's not a short RfC. Note that the media has been watching this; three outlets have reported about the RfC (and the Misplaced Pages discussion on the topic has received media attention before). Thanks in advance. ''']]''' 01:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
:Ross Finlayson (]), a major contributor to related discussions such as at ], last edited Misplaced Pages a few days before the RfC started. Maybe he is on holiday or something. He may have opposed the RfC. His views can be seen in the discussion I have just linked. This may not make much difference to the support/oppose vote numbers, but I think worth mentioning. ] (]) 11:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|12:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Assuming a positive result, you can just ping me in the closure or in the edit summary and I can implement the result. Thanks, ] (]) 16:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
* {{A note}} archived without consensus at ]. --] (] • ]) 04:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
*:{{A note}} I brought it back out of the archive. ] (]) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
*:: Robot is a robot. It will archive the discussion again. --] (] • ]) 12:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|18:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)}} Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 07:39, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|10:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 08:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:This discussion has been been resolved in practice, but a formal and ] closing statement would still be helpful. Otherwise, when one of the editors gets unblocked, we may be back here again. ] (]) 20:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|14:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Please assess consensus at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 10:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|02:02, 13 February 2020}} Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at ]? Thank you. —&nbsp;''''']'''&nbsp;<small>]</small>'' 03:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|21:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 23:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:<s><small>'''Note to closer:''' There is also an ], which overlaps with this RfC.--] (]) 22:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)</small></s>

====]====
{{Initiated|16:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)|type=RfC}} Lots of tensions have run high in this discussion. The editors involved (myself inclueded) have seemed to say everything they have to say. Would love to just have a definitive conclusion to this debate already. <span style="color:green;">] (] • ])</span> 04:22, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

====]====
{{Initiated|21:41, 22 February 2020|type=RfC}} The RfC was closed by one of the participants on March 13th. However, a new discussion (not an RfC) was opened below the RfC 3 days after the RfC was opened (]). That discussion is still ongoing, but two editors that support one side are claiming consensus, when clearly it is not the case. Please advise. ] (]) 03:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

====] <u>AND</u> ]====
{{Initiated|01:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)}} & {{Initiated|23:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at these related RfC<u>s</u> ] & ]. This may be a difficult close, as the conversation has had a tenancy to spill over into other talk page sections and overlaps with other RfCs.  Thanks--] (]) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
:'''Note to closer:''' A participant discussion is taking place ] with the hope of resolving or partly resolving the first of these RfCs without the need for a formal close. With any luck, that discussion may resolve or narrow the issues of the first RfC. I do not believe its creator, {{u|Davemoth}}, intended it to resolve the issues raised in the second RfC however.--] (]) 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ====
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, as produced by ~~~~~>|type=RfC}}
--> -->


== Deletion discussions ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}

=== Deletion discussions ===
{{XFD backlog|right}} {{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
==== ] ====
{{initiated|7 February 2020}} Somewhat complicated RfD involving multiple options. ] (]) 04:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

==== ] ====
{{initiated|28 February 2020}} Please review ]. --] (]) 08:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

==== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


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


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here.
==== ] ====
{{Initiated|14:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)}} Would an experienced admin please summarize and officially close this discussion on how notability for organizations and companies should be applied to art galleries? Thank you! ] (]) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
* {{ping|Qono}} the consensus in this discussion is obvious and official closure is unnecessary. ] (]) 14:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Marcocapelle}} The consensus was not clear to me and I think that this long, varied discussion would benefit from a closing summary. ] (]) 19:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Qono}}, I would second {{u|Marcocapelle}}'s opinion. While in a perfect world it would be nice to have a summary of all of the various arguments raised in the discussion, ultimately the concrete proposals were all resoundingly shot down, and I don't know that it's the best use of our limited volunteer resources to ask someone to summarize the discussion at this time. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
:::: I agree with the above, that an official closure of this rather convoluted discussion is unnecessary. ] ] 01:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
::::: {{Reply to|Marcocapelle|Rosguill|BD2412}} Fair enough. For what it's worth, I asked for this close because this discussion came up during ]. I thought it would be useful to have an official summary to help guide future discussions about galleries with questionable notability, but I accept that I am outnumbered here. ] (]) 02:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
::::::''' Support Official Close '''- I support an official closure of this long discussion. --] (]) 23:20, 26 February 2020 (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. ***
====]====
-->
{{initiated|21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)}} GAR that was originally closed as "Delist" until I realized that the article had been compromised by COI accounts. Consensus is that the article is fine to keep as a GA for now. As this discussion was started all the way back in October I'd like it closed. <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 01:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

==== ] ====
{{Initiated|17 November 2019}}
Please determine the consensus (if any) at ]. Thank you,<br/>] (]) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

:{{a note}} ] has just started to discuss whether there should be a map at all. Therefore this discussion may be void after the RfC closes.<br/>] (]) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
:{{a note}} That RfC has finished and we still need this discussion to be closed. Thanks,<br/>] (]) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

==== ] ====
{{initiated|15:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)}} Please review, asses and close this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard ].] (]) 12:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
:{{a note}} Now archived at ]. <span style="color:#CD0000"><small>comrade </small>] ★ (])</span> &nbsp;11:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

==== ] ====
{{initiated|19:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess consensus at ]. Various topics may require assessment: A) is there consensus for/against a split/fork between 'Climate Change' and 'Global warming' B) Is there consensus to start a rename proposal for either of the two options on the table B) is there consensus to wait a period of time for more developments/research before making an official move. ] (]) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


====]==== ===]===
{{initiated|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Initiated|08:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)}} Could an uninvolved editor or administrator close this discussion? ] (]) 02:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


==== ] ==== === ] ===
{{Initiated|8 December 2019}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ]? Thank you! &#8213;]&nbsp;] 05:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC) {{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{close}} by editor {{ut|S Marshall}}. ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<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)
{{initiated|10:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)}} Please close the discussion. --] (] • ]) 07:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


===]===
====]====
{{initiated|21:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)|type=rfc}} Need closure for ]. ] (]) 04:00, 4 March 2020 (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)


* {{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)
==== ] ====
{{initiated|00:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)}} Could an experienced uninvolved editor please review ]? --] (]) 01:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


====]==== ===]===
{{initiated|19:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)}} Any time ''after'' this merger proposal has been outstanding, would a non-involved editor ] and close the merger discussion? If no opposition, close as no objection after a period of time. Thanks. {{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)
<br />{{small|'''Note:''' you do ''not'' need to ''effect'' or ''carry out'' the merge as it has already been listed at the ] holding cell as awaiting consensus.}}
--]''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;"> &nbsp;]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ==== === Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}

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.
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 26 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 72 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)

    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 54 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)

    information 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 Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 23 0 23
    TfD 0 0 0 0 0
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 8 0 8
    RfD 0 0 39 12 51
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

    (Initiated 20 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (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 84 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)

    • information 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 42 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: