| Revision as of 15:08, 23 January 2015 editNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,399 edits →Talk:2015 Formula One season#Once more: No longer active← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:09, 23 January 2015 edit undoNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,399 edits →Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Ordering_of_sections_2: Done by S MarshallNext edit → | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
| Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|22 December 2014}}? See the subsection ] {{Initiated|23 December 2014|type=tban}}. Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|22 December 2014}}? See the subsection ] {{Initiated|23 December 2014|type=tban}}. Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :In archives so links are now: ] and ]. Have updated header here accordingly. ] (]) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | :In archives so links are now: ] and ]. Have updated header here accordingly. ] (]) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | |||
| Previous RfC was closed as "no consensus". Change was made anyway. A further RfC was started to try to get a better consensus. It has been open for a more than 2 weeks. Wondering if someone could close it? ] (] · ] · ]) 20:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That is inaccurate, The previous RFC was closed no consensus for a medical order. Afterwards the article was changed to a non medical order by an admin after a discussion with consensus from the editors on hand. ] 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Initiated|20 December 2014}} — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 23:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::What AlbinoFerret wrote is false. The previous RfC was closed as no consensus to change the order. The change to the order was made when an editor made an edit protected request while ignoring the previous RfC. ] (]) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::What you are saying is false. Per "Result: No consensus as to whether the article is primarily medical." in attempting to keep it a prominently medical order. The previous closing also stated "IMO, the way the body of the article launches straight into a discussion of the health effects related the article subject before providing the basic information about what the subject is doesn't look obviously neutral or natural." thats why it was changed. There is a section calling for the stoping of the RFC, that was hidden (collapsed), the closer should read it to fully understand whats going on. ] 23:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What AlbinoFerret wrote is misleading. There was no consensus to change the order per the previous RFC. No consensus means the order of the sections cannot be changed. Now AlbinoFerret claims "What it is and made of (components) before getting to health claims, these are the majority of the reliable sources." That is not true. The vast majority of the sources are about the health effects. AlbinoFerret believes the safety of e-cigarettes page is a "". ] (]) 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Im sure the closer will not have reading comprehension issues and understand what I wrote. The order of those sources is components first. There was consensus to change them after the closing of the previous RFC, and the edit was carried out by an admin. Yes, the "Safety of electronic cigarettes", a separate page, dealing with only medical issues, is a medical page, but thats not the page this section, or the RFC is on.] 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{done}}—] <small>]/]</small> 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
Revision as of 15:09, 23 January 2015
| 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.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.
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 businessMisplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29
- Template:Infobox university faculty
- Template:Infobox medical college
- Template:Bgr
- Template:Grey line
Template:Bg-cTemplate:Infobox Taiwan station- Template:Infobox Election Campaign
- Template:Infobox Electoral reform
- Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter
- Template:Quotation
- Template:Bq
Template:Infobox Cambridge college(closed)Template:Welcome-anon-border(closed)
I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3695 days ago on 29 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose (Initiated 3677 days ago on 17 December 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that discussion has been sufficient already... Looks like it had to be dearchived twice... Closing it would probably be a good idea now... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was archived again. I guess there is little need to unarchive it at the moment, given that the discussion itself seems to be over, as it looks like we'll need to wait a little for the close; the closer can obviously unarchive it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig editors
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors (Initiated 3672 days ago on 22 December 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo (Initiated 3671 days ago on 23 December 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- In archives so links are now: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig editors and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo. Have updated header here accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering (Initiated 3665 days ago on 29 December 2014) Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#Proposed_technical change: show pages expanded from redirects on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed
- Needs closing so that a software change can be suggested if successful. Sam Walton (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3678 days ago on 16 December 2014)
Talk:Bhutanese passport#rfc
- Please someone close this before we drown in trolls from 4chan. Haminoon (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes (Initiated 3682 days ago on 12 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages (Initiated 3679 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement (Initiated 3653 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Mustang#Capitalization RfC
Please snow-close this RFC in which a single editor is fighting to capitalize mustang and edit warred and got the article protected; time to move on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3646 days ago on 17 January 2015)
- I don't think that's appropriate. Even if the outcome is obvious, it would be better to exhaust this step in dispute resolution properly than snow close it (and find you can't rely on this later down the track because it was closed too early). There are many reasons why a position is asserted and many ways to describe those reasons; better to let all of the comments come in first as it might resolve the dispute. As to the edit-warring, if it's just one editor who won't stop, then the editor's conduct should be at ANI so there is an interim sanction pending the outcome of the RfC. Though right now, the article's protected so there should be no issue.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Getting back out of the protected state so that the obvious consensus can be implemented was my point. RFCs tend to stretch out for a month if not closed when the outcome becomes obvious, which is has become here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)