Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) at 14:19, 13 August 2023 (→Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_157#Multi-part_proposal_for_content_on_E._Jean_Carroll_v._Trump: not done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

• WP:CR
• WP:RFCL
• WP:ANRFC

The Closure requests 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 appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

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 8 December 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.

A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• 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:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
• Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Reliability of La Patilla closure review

(Initiated 519 days ago on 6 August 2023) Clear consensus. In my opinion, ready for closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:PragerU#RfC:_should_the_article_have_a_sentence_covering_PragerU's_profit_off_their_anti-LGBT_video?

(Initiated 587 days ago on 30 May 2023) No comments in the past seven days. Touches multiple contentious topic areas so probably best closed by an admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability

(Initiated 550 days ago on 7 July 2023) No comments for about 10 days until one today, consensus seems clear but would benefit from formal closure. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Cricketer microstubs

(Initiated 549 days ago on 8 July 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Isla Bryson case#RfC on the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name

(Initiated 548 days ago on 8 July 2023) RfC has expanded to consider four questions; if the name should be included in the lede, if the name should be included in the body, if the name should be included in the quote, if the quote should be included at all. Assessment of consensus on all these questions would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Gays Against Groomers#RFC Anti-LGBT, Right Wing in lede

(Initiated 538 days ago on 19 July 2023) It's a little early, but the last comment to the RfC was 6 days ago, so I think it's ran its course. The RfC could use a formal closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_157#Multi-part_proposal_for_content_on_E._Jean_Carroll_v._Trump

(Initiated 604 days ago on 14 May 2023) Three-part discussion was never closed, now archived. starship.paint (exalt) 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

{{Not done}}. Starship.paint, it does not seem like a close is necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: - why not necessary? The content has not been added. Either there is consensus or there isn't. Which is it? starship.paint (exalt) 07:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Starship.paint, per WP:WHENCLOSE, if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion. The last comment was three months ago, the discussion is already four archive pages deep, and I do not feel comfortable formally establishing a consensus for a discussion which may be out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry AirshipJungleman29, but I do not buy that explanation. You are apparently claiming that editors have already assessed the consensus. I do not see any evidence of that. What's simply happened is that it was archived, nobody closed and there is no result. If you do not feel comfortable with establishing a consensus, then nobody is forcing you to, but you don't have to stop everyone else from doing it either. starship.paint (exalt) 14:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I hardly think it is appropriate to categorise my action as "stopping everyone else from doing it either"—one wonders where the "everyone else" has been for the last month since you posted the close request, Starship.paint. You requested an uninvolved editor to assess whether a close was necessary and, if yes, summarise the discussion. Since you appear to be requesting another uninvolved editor to do that, even though it is not your right to do so, I will WP:DISENGAGE from this discussion, and let them decide both whether my decision was appropriate and whether your conduct constitutes WP:FORUMSHOPping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree no close is appropriate at this time. When conversations die out with no consensus to include content, we move on. Moreover in this case there have been additional very recent developments that would need to be considered, should the issue ever resurface with significant interest. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

... with no consensus to include content - that's for a closer to judge. starship.paint (exalt) 13:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Update please see related notification on the article talk page SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. This is something we don't see everyday... a contentious outcome of a closure request. Closing this closure request as "not done" because while some editors think that the discussion in question does not need to be closed, and some editors think that it should be closed, there is no consensus either way. The reason this doesn't happen everyday is because editors who request closure here are expected to accept the outcome and take other steps if they disagree. In this case and under these particular circumstances, the steps taken should involve reframing the old discussion and beginning a fresh, modern discussion with new, stronger arguments on the article's talk page. Hope everyone stays healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 183#Revision deletion and oversight for deadnames

(Initiated 560 days ago on 26 June 2023) Discussion has died off; while not a formal RfC, it was widely attended and held on a prominent board - I believe a consensus can be determined from it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409#Is AfterEllen a reliable source for BLP reporting?

(Initiated 555 days ago on 1 July 2023) Discussion seems to have settled, and while it's not an RfC a consensus closure on this source would be helpful going forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Administrative backlog