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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:11, 7 December 2013 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,108 edits →Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Misplaced Pages:Fag: comment← Previous edit Revision as of 21:41, 7 December 2013 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Requests for closure: +Next edit →
Line 112: Line 112:
] and ] seem to be on ]. Can someone disposition this on their behalf, or let me know if I should take this to ]? --] (]) 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC) ] and ] seem to be on ]. Can someone disposition this on their behalf, or let me know if I should take this to ]? --] (]) 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
:{{not done}} There is nothing to close. You have the choice: you either wait for Plastikspork's answer or take it to DRV. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC) :{{not done}} There is nothing to close. You have the choice: you either wait for Plastikspork's answer or take it to DRV. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

===Madeleine McCann's right eye===
:''See ]''
This is a request that an uninvolved editor or admin, and someone not normally involved in non-free content review, evaluate the disputed closure (linked above) of a discussion about ]. It would also help if the closer were someone familiar with the breadth of coverage the ] attracted in the UK and Portugal.

The image is a close-up shot of the distinctive mark on Madeleine's right eye, used in of the article, which discusses her and the significance of the eye image. We already use a ] as the main image (there are no free images of her), but the mark on the eye is not easy to see, so someone uploaded the close-up shot of it in 2007 to use in the section that discusses the eye. It's something that's more appropriate to show than describe.

{{U|Werieth}} removed the image in October, arguing that it violated the ]. I believe Werieth's argument is that, because we have an image of Madeleine at the top of the page, we don't need to reproduce a portion of that image to highlight the eye.

Whether the eye is discussed in the article speaks to whether the image is the subject of commentary (see , point 9, of the guideline), and whether it might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). It may also have a bearing on whether the ] (as opposed to guideline) is satisfied: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Werieth took the issue to non-free content review (), where it seemed (to me) that there was no consensus to remove it. {{U|ТимофейЛееСуда}} has now closed it as consensus to remove. I asked him to reconsider , but he stands by the closure, so I'm now requesting an independent review, if anyone's willing. Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:41, 7 December 2013

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
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39

    This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Shortcuts

    The Requests for closure 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 remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.

    Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 8 December 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 31 December 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.

    Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

    Notes about closing

    Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

    A request for comment 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 articles for deletion and move discussions—see Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

    Requests for closure

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, and Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussions

    Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

    Comment Now archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign. Armbrust 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress (among other proposals). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress and the request for closure at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Summary of proprosal to ban User:Middayexpress from editing Matthew Bryden.

    Also, there are two sections titled "Matthew Bryden" at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817. I have not removed either of them because I'm unsure which one has the more up-to-date material. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    Template talk:non-free review#RfC: Should the non-free review template be added to articles?

    The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

    Comment: The discussion was opened on October 25 and there has been no discussion since November 9. The RfC question is (posed by User:SlimVirgin): should the template be reverted to the pre-May 2013 version, and retained only for use on file pages? -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

    WP:NFCR open discussions

    We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:

    1. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    2. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    3. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    4. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
       Closed by ‎Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    5. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin

    There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#RFC: POV fork issue between Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd (initiated 16 October 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

    Do the Miniature Australian Shepherd and Miniature American Shepherd articles constitute a POV fork, should they be merged, and if they should be merged, under what breed name should they be merged - the original name (Mini Aussie) or the American Kennel Club-recognized name (Mini American)?

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should the Format parameter of Template:Infobox television be deleted? (initiated 7 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages#Should WP:MALPLACED include a prominent disclaimer note about its scope? (initiated 21 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 5#Template:WLeague NUJ

    Open for over four weeks including relisting. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#WikiAfrica subpages

    Open for several weeks. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Request to revert move of Galicia (Eastern Europe)

    Activity involved in this incident ended on Tuesday, November 19th and conversation on that continues on WP:AN involves the rationale for and against these content changes. Discussion should be moved to Talk Pages. Liz 17:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:

    1. Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
    2. Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
    3. Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)

    My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).

    The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Jews/infobox#English as the predominant language

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jews/infobox#English as the predominant language (initiated 11 October 2013; see Talk:Jews/infobox#Request for comment)? The question posed was: "If English has become the most commonly spoken tongue among Jews and the primary language of communication between Jews of different countries today, can it be referred to as their lingua franca?" Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals (initiated 24 October 2013)? Related RfCs were closed by Mdann52 (talk · contribs) at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Misplaced Pages talk:No paid advocacy#RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC

    If an early close would be beneficial, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC (initiated 8 November 2013)? See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive257#Anime and Manga RfC - Update, request for closure and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC#Statement by Sven Manguard. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Misplaced Pages#Requested move

    This has been running since 17 November. No-one seems able to call a halt to it. Consensus seems pretty much set, but occasional !votes do still dribble in. It ought to be uncontroversial. Even so it will take an admin with a clear head and a decent ability to summaries a rationale. Please let us not have a verdict of No Consensus! Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 21#Misplaced Pages:Fag

    Please could a level-headed, scrupulously uninvolved administrator close this rather acrimonious discussion before it degenerates further. Based on recent discussions including some of the participants, it will be taken to DRV if there is a hint of prior involvement, even from several years ago. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

     Closed by Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 14:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

    Please close User_talk:Plastikspork#Templates for The Secret Handshake and Morningwood

    User:Plastikspork and User:Lankiveil seem to be on WP:Wikibreaks. Can someone disposition this on their behalf, or let me know if I should take this to WP:DRV? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

     Not done There is nothing to close. You have the choice: you either wait for Plastikspork's answer or take it to DRV. Armbrust 23:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

    Madeleine McCann's right eye

    See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review/Archive 40#File:McCann right eye.jpg

    This is a request that an uninvolved editor or admin, and someone not normally involved in non-free content review, evaluate the disputed closure (linked above) of a discussion about File:McCann right eye.jpg. It would also help if the closer were someone familiar with the breadth of coverage the disappearance of Madeleine McCann attracted in the UK and Portugal.

    The image is a close-up shot of the distinctive mark on Madeleine's right eye, used in this section of the article, which discusses her and the significance of the eye image. We already use a non-free image of Madeleine as the main image (there are no free images of her), but the mark on the eye is not easy to see, so someone uploaded the close-up shot of it in 2007 to use in the section that discusses the eye. It's something that's more appropriate to show than describe.

    Werieth removed the image in October, arguing that it violated the non-free content guideline. I believe Werieth's argument is that, because we have an image of Madeleine at the top of the page, we don't need to reproduce a portion of that image to highlight the eye.

    Whether the eye is discussed in the article speaks to whether the image is the subject of commentary (see section 4.1.3, point 9, of the guideline), and whether it might be said to have iconic status (4.1.3, point 8). It may also have a bearing on whether the non-free content policy (as opposed to guideline) is satisfied: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

    Werieth took the issue to non-free content review (permalink), where it seemed (to me) that there was no consensus to remove it. ТимофейЛееСуда has now closed it as consensus to remove. I asked him to reconsider here, but he stands by the closure, so I'm now requesting an independent review, if anyone's willing. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 21:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)