This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Konjakupoet (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 28 April 2013 (→Article namespace). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:54, 28 April 2013 by Konjakupoet (talk | contribs) (→Article namespace)(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 | |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need formal closure.
The RfC Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review discussed how to appeal RfC closures and whether an administrator should summarily overturn a non-administrator's RfC closure.
Requests for closure
Article namespace
Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012#RfC_on_other_Comments_Section
Issues of WP:SYN and WP:OR have been highly controversial in this article. I am requesting closure for that reason, even though I think consensus is rather clear.Casprings (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes#RfC: Should this article include other disputes involving Ugg boots?
Would an experienced admininstrator assess the consensus and close as resolved or abandoned the RfC at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes. This may be a difficult closure due to the editor issues involved and advice regarding the behavior of the two main editors, User:Wayne and User:Phoenix and Winslow, would be appreciated.
This RfC has been somewhat compromised by a supporting editor canvassing a large number of editors and asking them to vote in Support. This editor was warned not to canvass but continued, justifying it as a request to vote per WP:FRS with no knowledge on his part as to how they would vote. This editor has also posted a competing RfC with the question reframed to encourage a "support" vote. Three editors (two supporters and one who voted to abandon) want the RfC abandoned due to the above issues rather than have it closed as resolved. However, despite these problems only two of the canvassed editors voted (both in support) which has not significantly impacted on the survey result which is currently seven votes for oppose, three votes for support and one vote for abandon with no further votes made in the last seven days. Closure will require significant patience on the part of the closing admin as the discussion currently runs to 25 pages. Wayne (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:dot the i#Requested move
There has been a move discussion for nearly a month now to move dot the i to Dot the I. Can someone have a look and determine whether it’s possible to take action? To summarize the arguments: Some want it moved because most sources have it capitalized, and because of Misplaced Pages’s naming conventions. Some want it to stay as is because a few sources have it in lowercase, and because only the lowercase “i” has a dot. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:George Maharis#Re-add "arrest"?
This was closed once and then reverted; now I hope there is a very clear consensus. --George Ho (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move_2_.28second_request.29 Multiple articles
This is a protracted and sometimes heated discussion regarding the renaming of multiple articles in a sensitive area. An administrator wholly uninvolved with articles on suicides, with excellent experience of article naming conventions and notability of topics is required, together with the genuine ability to see and understand both sides of the discussion and present a closing rationale that shows that the discussion has been taken into account is required. Imperfect closure is likely to lead to a request for a review by anyone involved in the discussion. Because the area is sensitive, a genuinely sensitive rationale is required to seek to ensure that further distress to those involved with the article topic (off Misplaced Pages) is minimised.
There are many subsections to the discussion, which is scheduled to close today. Entrenched views exist, and the discussion has become circular, with the same arguments being propounded by the same editors over and over again, but in subtly different flavours. The reason for asking for prompt closure is to try to get editors back to creating an encyclopaedia, not defending a position on naming. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Kiahan (kyahan)#Requested move
This RM is supported by everyone except one user who was edit-warring with the nominator (me), and they have since been blocked. No need to keep it open any longer. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages namespace
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate
RFC has expired, requesting and admin to close. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Misplaced Pages "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- That link has been archived, is it now too late to close it? See also:
- I second this request for a closing. Are the technical people still working on this? This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion. It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation. Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree
Would an administrator or an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages Talk:Administrators#Proposal for discussion regarding admin action by other admins who disagree (initiated early January 2013)? Thanks,Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 19#Template:Rozz_Williams
now open for over a month (since March 16 including the relisting). Frietjes (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- Relist or disposition - This TfD has now been relisted once for more than one week, and has been open since March 16th. The TfD should be relisted or dispositioned accordingly. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox
Been running for 19 days, last comment was 6 days ago, last new user comment was 13 days ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aerocar 2000
Can this AfD be speedy closed? I have withdrawn the (bad) nomination. — Brianhe (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Done by FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs). Steven Zhang 01:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Howard
Can someone speedy-close this obviously absurd nomination? Thanks--A bit iffy (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Other namespaces
User:Jmh649/Will Beback
It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor would close this informal RfC (opened 23 March) regarding whether Will Beback's indefinite ban should be lifted. The arbitration committee imposed the ban in February 2012, and last month rejected Will's appeal against it. The issue may proceed to a formal request to the committee, so it would be helpful to have a summary of the RfC's consensus. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I read part of the page with a thought toward closing it, but what's the point? The discussion has already moved on to so closing the RFC in the userspace page will not help. Chutznik (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I said, there might be a formal approach to the arbcom, so it would help if someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, BASC, or any of the individual arbs, would close and sum up the RfC. SlimVirgin 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Premature close requests
None currently.
Category: