Misplaced Pages:Closure requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Unscintillating (talk | contribs) at 16:58, 17 August 2014 (→WT:Verifiability#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:58, 17 August 2014 by Unscintillating (talk | contribs) (→WT:Verifiability#RfC, Insertion of a refimprove tag: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38	Archive 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

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)

NFCR discussions

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼ 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)

Archiving reverted. IMO, the consensus here is that maintenance tags are article improvements just like any other edit, and are subject to WP:BRD. There was also an interesting point that editors may choose to start the D in WP:BRD before the R. Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 17 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)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7#Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann/Archive 7#Should the speculated image of McCann made by a forensic artist be removed from the infobox and placed within the main article? (initiated 14 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Mario Götze#Gotze religion

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mario Götze#Gotze religion (initiated 15 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Mario Götze#RfC: Should a mention of the subject's faith be included or is it unnecessary?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)#RfC: should the article Paul Singer (businessman) mention that his company has been called a vulture fund? (initiated 16 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#RfC: proposed amendments to the lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#RfC: proposed amendments to the lead (initiated 16 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Human shields

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Human shields (initiated 18 July 2014)? See the subsection Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 4#Request for comments. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 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:Deaf culture#First person presentation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaf culture#First person presentation (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

While it appears that there is consensus on this page to use the term "deaf person" as many deaf people consider being deaf one of the most important aspects of their being. People with normal hearing do not see the fact that they can hear as one of the most important aspect of their being and thus "person with normal hearing" or "person with hearing" is better than "hearing person"

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Autism spectrum#Autistic-first language versus person-first language

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Autism spectrum#Autistic-first language versus person-first language (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

A consensus was reached on Talk:Autism, that Misplaced Pages's style should favor the phrase "autistic person" rather than "person with autism". We apparently need an entirely separate consensus in cases where "person with autism..." is followed by "...spectrum disorder."

The discussion referred to in the opening post is Talk:Autism/Archive 15#"Autistic person" versus "person with autism". Please also review the related discussion Talk:Autism#Individuals with autism (initiated 8 July 2014). 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)

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:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#RfC: Should the Green Party, along with other parties be included in the table of polling results (initiated 9 July 2014)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election#Consensus Vote in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#RfC: Can this book(BJP vis-a-vis Hindu Resurgence) on BJP by Koenraad Elst be added to further reading section of BJP article or is this book considered fringe theory? (initiated 11 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Synagogues face mass AfDs

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#Synagogues face mass AfDs (initiated 13 July 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#RfC: Mandatory disambiguation for Japanese places? (initiated 13 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should MOS:JAPAN continue to require disambiguation for unique place names?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Template namespace#RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Template namespace#RfC: What should the guideline be regarding the scope of templates? (initiated 18 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Username policy#Should we issue warnings to users for their username who have never edited? (initiated 11 July 2014)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:West Highland White Terrier#An editor has requested comments (initiated 7 July 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Since this article is assessed as Good Article, we are more restictive with pictures we add. Should this photograph be added to article or not?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Excessive topic-ban (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:SITEBAN proposal (initiated 12 August 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Appealing block conditions

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Appealing block conditions (initiated 15 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera

Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and legal threats by User:Visakha veera (initiated 10 August 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Propose topic bans. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)