This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Forbidden User (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 3 August 2014 (→Requests for closure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:46, 3 August 2014 by Forbidden User (talk | contribs) (→Requests for closure)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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.
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 businessTalk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No action The discussion has come to a natural end and parties have dispersed. Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- One of the last comments in the section was "...Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie." An uninvolved editor is needed to determine if one side has a stronger policy-based position or if the result is no consensus.
In a recent RfC close, FormerIP (talk · contribs) closed Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William? in favor of one side even though the vote count was also split 3–3. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- One of the last comments in the section was "...Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie." An uninvolved editor is needed to determine if one side has a stronger policy-based position or if the result is no consensus.
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
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Windows logo - 2006.svg
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Flag of the Torres Strait Islanders.svg
- Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Dance Moms Season 2 Parts 1&2 DVD Cover.jpg
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)
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅ᴥⱷ≼ 02:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter)
Would an uninvolved admin assess this, please? Erpert 20:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Time to revisit schools?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Time to revisit schools? (initiated 13 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "I am considering putting up a proposal to require that all schools and colleges be subject to the exact same standards as any other topic, specifically significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable." Is there a consensus that such a proposal would be a good one to submit to the community in a more widely advertised RfC?
There is a draft proposal in the subsection Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#Draft Proposal. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- No action - Neither of these sections has been formally discussed in a way that permits consensus to be evaluated. If there is a desire to change the current guidelines, a properly formatted RFC should be published. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Template talk:Geographic reference#RfC: Should Template:Geographic reference be split into separate templates for each source?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Geographic reference#RfC: Should Template:Geographic reference be split into separate templates for each source? (initiated 16 June 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should Template:Geographic reference remain as a single template or should each of the separate citations be put into a separate template?"
Please consider Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 24#Template:Geographic reference in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann#Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?
An anon started an RfC on 14 July on Should McCann be described as being 'age 11' in the infobox?. I'm hoping we can keep the RfC brief, for obvious reasons. Would an uninvolved editor take a look and decide whether it can be closed yet? Many thanks, SlimVirgin 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- I would suggest this RfC should not yet be closed. There has been additional discussion since you placed the above message, including a number of posts from today. Discussion points are valid and on track; I would be inclined to let this RfC continue to run. I don't particularly understand what the "obvious reasons" are to curtail this RfC? Unless, you are referring to the potential distress the discussion might cause to the family; in which case, there is no evidence any such distress exists. Bellerophon talk to me 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- The RFC was opened on 14 July 2014. The 30-day period is still running. Is there a reason why it is important to close it early? It doesn't appear to be a WP:SNOW case, and if it were, it would not have to be here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 26 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)
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)