This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nyttend (talk | contribs) at 05:30, 24 January 2015 (Not done and will not be done. Kindly cease wasting everyone's time and start heeding the note at the top of this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:30, 24 January 2015 by Nyttend (talk | contribs) (Not done and will not be done. Kindly cease wasting everyone's time and start heeding the note at the top of this page)(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 9 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 businessMisplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29
- Template:Infobox university faculty
- Template:Infobox medical college
- Template:Bgr
- Template:Grey line
Template:Bg-cTemplate:Infobox Taiwan station- Template:Infobox Election Campaign
- Template:Infobox Electoral reform
- Template:Infobox gunpowder plotter
- Template:Quotation
- Template:Bq
Template:Infobox Cambridge college(closed)Template:Welcome-anon-border(closed)
I would close these, but I am closing too many of them. However, I can provide procedural help for anyone who is unfamiliar with how to close discussions and would like to help with closing. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ 22:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3693 days ago on 29 November 2014) — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Close Review Request after overturn and reclose (Initiated 3675 days ago on 17 December 2014) after there has been sufficient discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure that discussion has been sufficient already... Looks like it had to be dearchived twice... Closing it would probably be a good idea now... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- It was archived again. I guess there is little need to unarchive it at the moment, given that the discussion itself seems to be over, as it looks like we'll need to wait a little for the close; the closer can obviously unarchive it. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't archive it until it's resolved. Alsee (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll archive this request in the next couple of days if nobody objects (and if nobody else gets there first). Sunrise (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's a reason no one has closed this yet. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the head. Just let it die. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig editors
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors (Initiated 3670 days ago on 22 December 2014)? See the subsection Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo (Initiated 3669 days ago on 23 December 2014). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- In archives so links are now: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig editors and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Proposed topic ban for TheNorlo. Have updated header here accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering
Would an administrator assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive267#Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering (Initiated 3663 days ago on 29 December 2014) Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#Proposed_technical change: show pages expanded from redirects on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed
- Needs closing so that a software change can be suggested if successful. Sam Walton (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3676 days ago on 16 December 2014)
Talk:Bhutanese passport#rfc
- Please someone close this before we drown in trolls from 4chan. Haminoon (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes (Initiated 3680 days ago on 12 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to auto-transclude /doc subpages (Initiated 3677 days ago on 15 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement
Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Proposal to streamline community sanctions enforcement (Initiated 3651 days ago on 10 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Mustang#Capitalization RfC
Please snow-close this RFC in which a single editor is fighting to capitalize mustang and edit warred and got the article protected; time to move on. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3644 days ago on 17 January 2015)
- I don't think that's appropriate. Even if the outcome is obvious, it would be better to exhaust this step in dispute resolution properly than snow close it (and find you can't rely on this later down the track because it was closed too early). There are many reasons why a position is asserted and many ways to describe those reasons; better to let all of the comments come in first as it might resolve the dispute. As to the edit-warring, if it's just one editor who won't stop, then the editor's conduct should be at ANI so there is an interim sanction pending the outcome of the RfC. Though right now, the article's protected so there should be no issue.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Getting back out of the protected state so that the obvious consensus can be implemented was my point. RFCs tend to stretch out for a month if not closed when the outcome becomes obvious, which is has become here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)