Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 23:15, 6 January 2016 editClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,386,336 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 20. (BOT)← Previous edit Revision as of 15:42, 7 January 2016 edit undoFountains-of-Paris (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,722 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters: Request close on Bach Talk page.Next edit →
Line 175: Line 175:


This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015,<code> <nowiki>{{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}</nowiki>. </code> Thanks. ] (]) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC) This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015,<code> <nowiki>{{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}</nowiki>. </code> Thanks. ] (]) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

===Request for closure on Bach which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed===
Could someone visit this Talk page at ] and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. ] (]) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:42, 7 January 2016

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 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot 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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 25 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:Non-free content review

    This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

    Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    (Initiated 3513 days ago on 13 June 2015)
    About 155 discussions still to be closed.

    Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

    • I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    • We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk)

    (Initiated 3364 days ago on 9 November 2015) - review of a move originally proposed 21 October 2015. Experience closing contentious discussions needed, and apologies in advance for the wall of text. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

    Discussion has waned past the point of productivity. Calidum T|C 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    Total discussion stopped December 2, so it is stable and ready for closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Original close was voluntarily withdrawn. Listed for a new Admin close. (non-admin closure) Alsee (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    As the closer of the move, it was NOT withdrawn. Where are you reading that? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    I misread one of the comments there. All my error. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused. I self-reverted my edits. Except for the the comments here, everything should be back to the original state. Alsee (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

    Consensus seems clear and discussion has halted, so an administrator is needed to review and close three topic bans, and possibly enforce the topic bans at the following incident report: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal. I can help however I can. Thank you. (Initiated 3354 days ago on 19 November 2015) SanctuaryX 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal (Initiated 3354 days ago on 19 November 2015)? See the subsections Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for SanctuaryX. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    There is a subsection for Zpeopleheart as well at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart Please resolve this quickly because there are still ongoing issues that need to be resolved ASAP. SanctuaryX 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    In all actuality there are new comments and discussion points have been added since the last archiving for lack of discussion, so discussion may continue. So any admin or other proper person please unarchive the whole deal so we make discuss greely to make it gair for all parties. Thanks. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    The only continued "discussion" was you opposing your own ban after removing your comments from my talk page. The discussion is very much stalled, with a pretty clear consensus for all three cases; it can still be closed regardless of whether it is archived or not. SanctuaryX 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    sanx, I do note this comment that you placed here. You are though quite incorrect on the policies and protocol at wikipedia. Please do have a fantastic day©! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    • Wordseventeen, SanctuaryX is correct. In an issue that has been as tendentious as this one has been, it's a good idea to not suggest that someone is quite incorrect about policies and protocol unless you are going to back it up with diffs and links to specific policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view (Initiated 3378 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#RfC: Sklenár's theory.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional (Initiated 3372 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study

    clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

    CANVASS by User:Green_Cardamom

    Requesting a closure of this old ANI discussion. The nominator is accused of systemic targeting a user (me) and nominating his articles at AFD. There was a boomerang, in fact. The discussion is old but not closed. (Initiated 3591 days ago on 27 March 2015) Mhhossein (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:NQ Mobile#Stock crash and lawsuit#What the company does#(Copied here from Talk:Nagle)#Whitewashing, NPOV and potential COI

    Requesting closure on these old discussions as the only relevant discussion is that the article is out of date which I started and has now been lost. The company recently announced a new Showself entertainment brand and some divestitures which I'd intended on working on. Rgeurts (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    References

    1. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nq-mobile-says-most-nationsky-205327545.html

    Request for closure on Phaedrus (dialogue) which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed

    Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) and do a close on this short RfC during the holidays. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

    Request for closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_29#Category:Latter-day_Saints_portal

    Please close the discussion and rename the category. Thanks.--Broter (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

    You now have to only close the discussion and delete the old category.--Broter (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items#Removal proposal: Toronto International Film Festival

    There is a consensus. An uninvolved administrator may be needed. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Terry MacAlmon (2nd nomination)

    Discussion was relisted but I'm pretty sure there's a clear consensus to keep. Would have withdrawn my nomination earlier but assumed it would be closed as keep regardless. No need for this to be open for another week imo. Sam Walton (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (sports)#RfC (Initiated 3367 days ago on 6 November 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

    Current language on notability of athletes includes:

    Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan.

    Should this be changed to:

    Individuals who have competed at any modern Olympic Games and who have either won a medal or won at least one heat or match in their event shall generally be considered notable. Any individual winning a medal at a Paralympics may also be generally considered to be notable.

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Norman Milliken#RfC: Should the article state that Milliken, Ontario is named after Norman Milliken? (Initiated 3365 days ago on 8 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Fiona Graham#Age

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Fiona Graham#Age (Initiated 3355 days ago on 18 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Karbala#RFC for notability (Initiated 3349 days ago on 24 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jude Wanniski#RFC on description of the Laffer curve (Initiated 3356 days ago on 17 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps"

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Portal talk:Current events/2015 November 17#APEC Philippines 2015 "Concentration camps" (Initiated 3350 days ago on 23 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida#RFC: The Burg

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:St. Petersburg, Florida#RFC: The Burg (Initiated 3366 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Greco-Italian War#RfC v2

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Greco-Italian War#RfC v2 (Initiated 3359 days ago on 14 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC (Initiated 3353 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired (Initiated 3353 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Florida State Road 997#RJL reversions

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Florida State Road 997#RJL reversions (Initiated 3360 days ago on 13 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC Appropriate version for the new clause

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC Appropriate version for the new clause (Initiated 3372 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    As an involved editor in this topic area, I'd like to request that the closer consider the preceding discussion as well, since it discusses the status of the previous RfC close. (AFAIK that close was never appealed at AN, but it probably should have been, as expressed in e.g. this comment by WhatamIdoing.) Sunrise (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg (Initiated 3347 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Contemporary worship music#Request for comment: Length and content of article lede (Initiated 3366 days ago on 7 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC: Flag icons in professional boxing record tables (Initiated 3337 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon? (Initiated 3381 days ago on 23 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters

    Would an experienced editor assess the discussion on the RfC at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters#RfC:_Appropriate_detail_of_plot_summary_information?

    This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015, {{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}. Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    Request for closure on Bach which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed

    Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

    Category:
    Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions Add topic