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 18:53, 31 August 2014 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,175 edits fix 1 header & pipe it← Previous edit Revision as of 18:55, 31 August 2014 edit undoArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers326,175 edits fix more headersNext edit →
Line 118: Line 118:
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, ] (]) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, ] (]) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


=== ] ===
=== ] ===
Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by ] in article space? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by ] in article space? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


=== ]===
=== ]===
Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by ] to ease the topic ban? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by ] to ease the topic ban? ] (]) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)



===] === ===] ===

Revision as of 18:55, 31 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
    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.

    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 business

    Template 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)

    This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:34, 23 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: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 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:

    1. Misplaced Pages talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
    2. Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
    3. Misplaced Pages:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
    4. Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
    5. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
    6. Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
    7. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
    8. 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)
    9. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
    10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
    11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
    12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
    13. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
    14. Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
    15. Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
    16. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
    17. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
    18. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
    19. 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:

    1. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
    2. User talk:Hobit#Question re: Misplaced Pages:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
    3. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
    4. 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)

    Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Creation Museum#accreditation (initiated 14 July 2014)? The discussion at Talk:Creation Museum#Resolved? indicates that 22 editors participated in the discussion. Because of the discussion's complexity (one editor called it "Longest RfC discussion ever"), I believe a closure would be helpful in determining and recording the consensus. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014) and Talk:Autism#Compromise proposal: "people who are autistic" (initiated 4 August 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for the 4 August discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

    Second was  Closed by Drmies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Armbrust 19:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

    Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools#RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?

    Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal

    This discussion seemed routine at first, but a couple of late comments make it less than obvious that this should be a routine close. I.E., The first seven respondents all gave support, but the last two articulated only partial support for specific reasons that may need consideration. Discussion was opened a full week ago.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (comics)#Merge redundant guideline material

    Unopposed (if low-participation) cleanup proposal has run for three months. Way long enough for objections to have been raised. While a non-admin could close this, is probably better if done administratively, due to these being (nominal) guidelines subject to frequent contentious tooth-gnashing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼  15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Oathkeeper#Proposal

    Requesting a formal close. I believe consensus on this is fairly clear-cut, but given the controversial long-term nature of the overall discussion it's probably best to have an uninvolved editor handle the assessment just to keep everything on the up and up. DonIago (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of Admin RFC Closure (removal of book by Koenraad Elst in Further reading section of an article) (initiated 26 August 2014) after there has been sufficient participation and sufficient time has passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

    Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

    Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

    RfC on Talk:Treats!

    Looking for an admin to close this. It's run for 30 days and is definitely ready for closing KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)