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 05:07, 24 January 2015 editDicklyon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers477,049 edits →Talk:Mustang#Capitalization RfC← Previous edit Revision as of 05:30, 24 January 2015 edit undoNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,391 edits Not done and will not be done. Kindly cease wasting everyone's time and start heeding the note at the top of this pageNext edit →
Line 72: Line 72:
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! ] ] 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) 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! ] ] 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
* {{Initiated|29 November 2014|type=tfd}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC) * {{Initiated|29 November 2014|type=tfd}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced and uninvolved administrator please close the discussion at ]. It never should be the discussion it has become. Thanks, ] (]) 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
* {{Initiated|7 December 2014|done=yes}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 17:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
:: There's like three simultaneous issues, aren't there? First the issue of the source, which seems resolved. Then the issue of the alignment and now it looks like an issue with the alignment with the flag. How would it be closed? How about someone create an actual RFC format and let people comment their views in separate subheadings? And this may sound ridiculous but I say someone should actually elevate this to ] or bring it to a WP:Sports-level discussion. We may as well have an actual agreed-upon formatting fight done in one place and end these bits and pieces. I still can't figure out why it's only the current season that has squabbling. -- ] (]) 09:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
:::{{done}}. ] (]) 00:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor the consensus at ] {{Initiated|15 December 2014}}? See the subsection ] {{Initiated|21 November 2014}}. Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor the consensus at ] {{Initiated|21 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|13 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

:I have posted there to ask whether this still requires closing or not. ] (]) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|21 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] ] 04:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|25 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
*{{done}}—] <small>]/]</small> 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Line 111: Line 83:
::::Don't archive it until it's resolved. ] (]) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ::::Don't archive it until it's resolved. ] (]) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough. :-) ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC) :::::Fair enough. :-) ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
===] backlog===
There are still 12 unclosed RM discussions from 6–10 December, 4 weeks ago; and one from November. Some of the regular closers seem to have gone on holiday. Help would be appreciated. ] (]) 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
:Just noting that the backlog here is still really long - there are over 100 unclosed discussions from December. ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


=== ] === ===]===
{{anchor|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors}}
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)


===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|7 November 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Would an administrator assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|29 December 2014}} Thanks, ] (]) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|19 November 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|25 November 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 October 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:Relisted to ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|22 October 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:Relisted to ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 01:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|30 November 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|31 October 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|29 November 2014|type=rfd}}? Thanks, ] (]) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|17 December 2014|type=rfd}}? <small>''(Consensus seems clear, but I cannot close it since I am involved and since I am a non-administrator; closing this will help clear the backlog at RFD.)''</small> Thanks, ] (]) 21:02, 2 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">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <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)
:*Restored for archiving. ClueBot will archive it. ] (]) 00:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
===]===
* RFC needs closing: proposed wording and survey at ]. ] (]) 05:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
* {{Initiated|16 December 2014}} — <span class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;]&#125;&#125; <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
**The RfC tag was not added until so the RfC was not open for very long and the section has not been open 30 days since the RfC tag was added, and the conversation continues with .-- ] (]) 13:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
***The conversation had pretty well settled down until PBS canvassed 50 users yesterday () through his alternate account {{u|PBS-AWB}}. ] (]) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] backlog ===

Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:

*] – {{Initiated|15 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] - {{Initiated|20 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|21 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|24 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''delete'''. ] (]) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
*] – {{Initiated|24 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|24 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|29 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|29 October 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|29 October 2014|type=tfd|done=yes}}
:*Done by ] - closed as '''subst and delete'''. ] (]) 05:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
*]– {{Initiated|1 November 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|15 November 2014|type=tfd}}
*] – {{Initiated|15 November 2014|type=tfd}}
*] - {{Initiated|29 November 2014|type=tfd}}

Thanks, ] (]) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

=== ] ===
Would an uninvolved administrator please drop by to close a discussion at ]? The discussion has been open for almost thirty days with no recent action in a couple of weeks. Thanks. ] (]) 01:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC) {{Initiated|18 December 2014}}

===]===
Request close of section ]. Little discussion for a couple of weeks. Related to general sanctions at ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) {{Initiated|31 December 2014}}

=== Ma Mati Manush ===
* Here was a merge proposal ] (Merge proposals are sometimes very disturbing, we, on Misplaced Pages, have no systematic procedure to close these discussions (like AFD or RM). (I am an involved editor and article creator) --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">]</span> 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
**{{replyto|Titodutta}} I'm not sure it really does need a formal close; the input given is too limited and is terribly stale {{initiated|11 March 2014}}, so I wouldn't be comfortable formally closing that in any way. You can just probably run things as they are and boldly remove the tags until the question is raised again (if ever), but it may be worth opening a request for comment so the question can be resolved properly on a more long-term basis. By the way, congratulations. ] (]) 03:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
*Needs closing so that a software change can be suggested if successful. ] (]) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC){{initiated|16 December 2014}} *Needs closing so that a software change can be suggested if successful. ] (]) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC){{initiated|16 December 2014}}

===]===
* Now that the original closer has returned from a 4-week absence and made his comments, no further delay is necessary. Several other open RMs hinge on the outcome. ] (]) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC){{initiated|24 December 2014}}
::It appears that the move was done in December 2014 and that this item can be closed. ] (]) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
* Please someone close this before we drown in trolls from 4chan. ] (]) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC) * Please someone close this before we drown in trolls from 4chan. ] (]) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


===]===
===]===
* This should be a ] close, though it's been open for 17 days. ] (]) 15:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC){{initiated|10 January 2015}} Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|12 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::There is enough ongoing discussion here for this RfC to run its full term. A SNOW close is not appropriate. ] ] 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 December 2014}}? See the subsection ], where the opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Since the above discussion keeps running around in circles :

The grand jury ] section currently* consists of 18 quotes/opinions plus the table.
* Should we keep quotes, or move to a more prose style summary
** If kept as quotes, should the number of quotes be reduced
** Or a summary plus a small number of representative quotes
* Should the table be kept, or moved into prose
<nowiki>*</nowiki> <small>The ] may differ from the .</small></blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|30 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{done}}—] <small>]/]</small> 13:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|6 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|7 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|9 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|13 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{done}}, although the close is now being reviewed below. Apparently this one, at least, was contentious enough to need a formal close.—] <small>]/]</small> 01:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|22 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|21 December 2014}}? Please consider ] in your close. Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|27 May 2013}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|9 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|21 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} Easy enough ] ] 03:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|4 December 2014}}? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>Should we '''very briefly''' describe a ] of the shooting and controversy of the evidence/witnesses to give context to the origin of these protests and the gesture the article is about. One proposed wording would be "There is conflicting evidence and witness statements regarding the circumstances of the shooting, and in particular the position of Brown's hands at the time of the shooting."</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{done}}—] <small>]/]</small> 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

===] and ]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|5 December 2014}} and ] {{Initiated|5 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|17 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|3 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|11 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|2 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|8 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|4 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{Done}} ] ] 04:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|19 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
*I've looked at this, but I'm not sure it's wise to close it yet because there's still a featured article review in progress. I think that in this case it may be better to let the FAR fully run its course and to take its conclusions into account when closing the RfC.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|2 December 2014}}? The "Media coverage" section is currently in the article. Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|12 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] ]] 13:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|19 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|21 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|30 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|6 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] {{Initiated|1 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|8 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
*{{done}}—] <small>]/]</small> 13:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)



===]=== ===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|15 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|15 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|24 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|10 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|22 December 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|29 November 2014}}? Thanks, ] (]) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] ]] 13:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)



===]=== ===]===
Line 336: Line 111:
: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.... ] (]) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) :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.... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 06:38, 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. ] (]) 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::Well, he has attracted a couple more capitalizers now, but the outcome is still clear. The waste of time is sad and pointy. ] (]) 05:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
It looks like this has been sufficiently debated. An involved editor went ahead and performed the merge, but it was reverted by another involved editor. I think we need an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. ]] (]) 11:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC){{initiated|12 January 2015}}
*I've looked at this, StAnselm, and although the conclusion appears to be obvious at first glance, I think it might still be a little too early to close. Better to give it another few days, so that it's absolutely clear that everyone's had every chance to make their case; otherwise there's a risk of the close being overturned for being premature.—] <small>]/]</small> 23:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] {{Initiated|13 January 2015}}? Thanks, ] (]) 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Has gone over 7 days. ] (]) 09:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

===]===
Relist has gone over 7 days. ] (]) 15:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:30, 24 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
    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 9 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 business

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

    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)

    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 3675 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig editors

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors (Initiated 3670 days ago on 22 December 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo (Initiated 3669 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 3663 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

    Talk:Bhutanese passport#rfc

    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 3680 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 3677 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 3651 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 3644 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)
    Category: