| Revision as of 22:31, 16 August 2014 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,175 edits →Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:37, 16 August 2014 edit undoArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,175 edits archiving 7 sectionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Unopposed (except by author) suggestion to userfy-without-redirect another of this editor's failed policy-change proposals masquerading as ]s (cf. userspacing of ], and I think there've been others; maybe ] started that way). Userspacing proposed in April, and re-proposed recently after revisions made the page even more of a mess (see ]). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | Unopposed (except by author) suggestion to userfy-without-redirect another of this editor's failed policy-change proposals masquerading as ]s (cf. userspacing of ], and I think there've been others; maybe ] started that way). Userspacing proposed in April, and re-proposed recently after revisions made the page even more of a mess (see ]). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| An anon started an RfC on 14 July on ]. I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet? Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I would suggest this RfC should not yet be closed. There has been additional discussion since you placed the above message, including a number of posts from today. Discussion points are valid and on track; I would be inclined to let this RfC continue to run. I don't particularly understand what the "obvious reasons" are to curtail this RfC? Unless, you are referring to the potential distress the discussion might cause to the family; in which case, there is no evidence any such distress exists. ]</span> ]</span> 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The RFC was opened on 14 July 2014. The 30-day period is still running. Is there a reason why it is important to close it early? It doesn't appear to be a ] case, and if it were, it would not have to be here. ] (]) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{close}} by {{user|S Marshall}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Line 83: | Line 77: | ||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | :'''Comment''' Now archived at ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 23 June 2014)? Thanks, ] (]) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| : {{resolved}} -- ] (]) 16:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 134: | Line 124: | ||
| :: It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. ] (]) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | :: It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. ] (]) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Please close and measure the consensus. Thanks, ] <small>(]/])</small> 09:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{close}} by {{user|Mdann52}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This review has been open for 12 days, with no activity for the past 3 days. -- ] ] 01:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{close}} by {{admin|Sandstein}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| This has been going for some time. User who is subject of proposal has suggested it might be time to close. Might be good if it was closed before it gets archived. I have commented in the discussion. <span style="font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#000;">] ]</span> 16:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears that a consensus is forming for the ban. Could an admin look at this? <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 21:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just another edit to call an admin to this. It's at the top of the AN/I thread and will be archived soon. <font face="MV Boli">]]</font> 02:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Closed. '''] ]]''' 03:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| === ] === | === ] === | ||
| Open since 29 April. ] (]) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | Open since 29 April. ] (]) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| 30 day period passed. Could an admin assess the consensus and close this RfC?] (]) 18:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{done}} (NAC, but none of the possible outcomes required admin tools to implement, so an admin close was not required.) ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 06:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| Discussion appears to have mostly stopped. While its only been open 12 days, its generated plenty of discussion (250k) for a closer to review, and there have been no new comments in over 2 days. ]] 19:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{close}} by {{user|S Marshall}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:37, 16 August 2014
| 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 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.
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 closure 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 early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
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 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.
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 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 § Backlog, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old, Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion § Old businessTemplate talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
NFCR discussions
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Windows logo - 2006.svg
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Dance Moms Season 2 Parts 1&2 DVD Cover.jpg
Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
In progress I hacked out #1, slowly heading for 2 and 3. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Concision razor#Userfy without redirect
Unopposed (except by author) suggestion to userfy-without-redirect another of this editor's failed policy-change proposals masquerading as WP:ESSAYs (cf. userspacing of User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle, and I think there've been others; maybe User:Born2cycle/Rationalized JDLI started that way). Userspacing proposed in April, and re-proposed recently after revisions made the page even more of a mess (see Misplaced Pages talk:Concision razor#A fresh look). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
WT:Verifiability#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag
This will be with us for awhile, so a close will be helpful going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Unscintillating:: I don't see any specific policy outcomes for that discussion, as the specific question (3RR exemption) is trivially answered but the broader question (who has the burden of justifying a tag) is not really something one could change by fiat as a result of the RfC, even if the discussion itself pointed us in a specific direction. Protonk (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 62#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag. Armbrust 07:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Frozen (2013 film)#Should the New York screening hosted by Disney and The Cinema Society be included in the article?
Could an uninvolved admin close this unactive but rather heated discussion. I made an attempt to close it but received a threat to AN/I instead. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Free! (anime)#Comments after the move (initiated 4 July 2014)? Please consider Talk:Free! (anime)#Move and Talk:Free! (anime)#Bold rename following opposition to it in the RM above in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Signatures#On the topic of "Appearance and color" and line-height (initiated 23 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Size of Archives
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Size of Archives (initiated 24 June 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#Sports history
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 4#Sports history? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
- Misplaced Pages talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
- Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)
Here are discussions with the Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC closer:
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
- User talk:Hobit#Question re: Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6#Varnasrama
Open since 29 April. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)