| Revision as of 22:56, 23 October 2021 editGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers494,637 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject British Royalty#RFC: Head of the Commonwealth, include or exclude at George VI's & Elizabeth II's infoboxes← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:52, 24 October 2021 edit undoBtspurplegalaxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,012 edits Listing new discussion using anrfc-listerNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| ==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
| {{Initiated|22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)}} Looks like we have a clear consensus here, after more than 3 weeks of wrangling over the issue. The discussion has slowed to a crawl, and I don't expect any further meaningful input at this point. Since all of the parties interested appear to be involved, I'm requesting that an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion, per an off-wiki request. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC) | {{Initiated|22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)}} Looks like we have a clear consensus here, after more than 3 weeks of wrangling over the issue. The discussion has slowed to a crawl, and I don't expect any further meaningful input at this point. Since all of the parties interested appear to be involved, I'm requesting that an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion, per an off-wiki request. ''''']''''' 🌀 (]) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ==== ] ==== | |||
| {{initiated|14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)}} The discussion has come to a halt so I think it's time for it be closed. So if an uninvolved editor could proceed with the closure I'd really appreciate it. ] (]) 00:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== | ==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== | ||
Revision as of 00:52, 24 October 2021
"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, or Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.| 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 | |
The Closure requests noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears 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 policy or guideline.
Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.
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 request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 11 December 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. 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.
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
Any uninvolved editor 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.
A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure for details.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked 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}}.
Requests for closure
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, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old businessAdministrative discussions
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#User:Homeostasis07 disruptive_behavior
(Initiated 1201 days ago on 27 September 2021) ANI thread that has been open for a while. Discussion has stalled recently but consensus is not obvious, so it would benefit from an administrative close. {{u|Sdkb}} 02:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_:_The_American_Conservative
(Initiated 1438 days ago on 1 February 2021) This has considerable discussion in detail, but got archived before closure. If someone could look it over, that would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:VPPR#Dispense with "In popular culture" because there is no such thing.
(Initiated 1246 days ago on 12 August 2021) This RfC ended some time ago, but there's disagreement (here) about the result. We'd specifically like a decision on whether the RfC establishes consensus for the creation of a new guideline along the lines of CaptainEek's proposal. Thanks. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Some context: the relevant part isn't the section linked in the heading but this subsection ("CaptainEek's proposal"). It's not a proposal "for the creation of a new guideline" -- that's how DanFromAnotherPlace has interpreted it. Given what seemed like a rough consensus there, combined with what I perceive to be fairly common practice with such sections, I made a change to MOS:POPCULT. That section already had some similar guidance about inclusion/sourcing requirements, etc. stemming from a 2015 RfC. Formal closure is, of course, not required, but I don't object to it either. Just adding context. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:2019 Indian general election#RfC: Should the results table include results from delayed elections
(Initiated 1242 days ago on 17 August 2021) Looks like there is no consensus here, discounting canvassing? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#RfC: Language at new user signup page
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 10 September 2021) Expired CENT-listed RfC. Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus here? {{u|Sdkb}} 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Julian Assange#RFC,_how_should_we_word_the_material_about_Assange_and_Seth_Rich?
(Initiated 1211 days ago on 17 September 2021) It has been going on while but we need an outside to dedcide what the close decision should be, and close it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject British Royalty#RFC: Head of the Commonwealth, include or exclude at George VI's & Elizabeth II's infoboxes
(Initiated 1206 days ago on 22 September 2021) The RFC template has expired. We are ready for closure. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Closed Alerting @GoodDay: Closed by: Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Pyrrho the Skeptic: I suspect, some may challenge your decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Second Cold War#RfC: Use a map, an image, or neither?
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 25 September 2021) Uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think this should probably go the full 30 days. This isn't a WP:SNOW situation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:2021 Atlantic hurricane season#Should we add a Misplaced Pages page for Hurricane Sam (2021)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 25 September 2021) Looks like we have a clear consensus here, after more than 3 weeks of wrangling over the issue. The discussion has slowed to a crawl, and I don't expect any further meaningful input at this point. Since all of the parties interested appear to be involved, I'm requesting that an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion, per an off-wiki request. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:HoYeon_Jung#Requested move 7 October 2021
(Initiated 1190 days ago on 7 October 2021) The discussion has come to a halt so I think it's time for it be closed. So if an uninvolved editor could proceed with the closure I'd really appreciate it. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 22 | 33 | 55 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 15 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 17 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 36 | 34 | 70 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_September_22#Category:Historical_figures_with_ambiguous_or_disputed_gender_identity
(Initiated 1206 days ago on 22 September 2021) Discussion appears to have petered out a few weeks ago. I'd like to request an uninvolved admin closure for this given its possible controversial nature. If it seems like relisting and continuing to discuss would be better, that's fine too, this is just an old CfD page now that no one's looked at in a couple of weeks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Australian Strategic Policy Institute#Blog under Press coverage
(Initiated 1237 days ago on 22 August 2021) Editors (including me) are not agreeing on what the consensus was; an uninvolved closure of this by an experienced editor/admin might be helpful in ascertaining a consensus or lack thereof. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle#Proposal: Merge Rabbid Peach into this article
(Initiated 1200 days ago on 28 September 2021) Since the day it was first offered, discussion on this topic appears to have stopped, with no involvement from any other editor. 143.189.187.173 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)