Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cunard (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 4 February 2015 (→Requests for closure: restored ANRFC requests for archiving by ClueBot III and an unresolved request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:19, 4 February 2015 by Cunard (talk | contribs) (→Requests for closure: restored ANRFC requests for archiving by ClueBot III and an unresolved request)(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
    Archiving icon
    Archives
    Index
    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
    Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
    Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
    Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
    Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
    Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
    Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
    Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
    Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
    Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30
    Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33
    Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36
    Archive 37Archive 38Archive 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 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 business

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 29

    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)

    Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting

    Would an experienced editor the consensus at Talk:Aspromonte goat#RFC on citation formatting (Initiated 3701 days ago on 21 November 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 27 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)
    Well, it is not that hard. The closer of the original discussion (first part) has said that he is not going to explain how he got the answer, because that would lead to a long discussion (Special:Diff/640249413 - "I'm not going to give out a list when the only effect will be to give you as many reasons as there are entries for pointlessly rehashing the debate."). That is the most important point (although there are others). If the closer thinks that it is good reasoning corresponding to policy and one should simply trust the closer, discussion will be closed as "endorse", if closer thinks that reasoning behind the close has to be explained, discussion will be closed as "overturn". The discussion about the second part is even shorter and the same point is even clearer. Nothing hard here.
    Of course, there is a problem that uninvolved closers might be hard to find... To some extent, even the ones who have cooperated with WMF can be seen as "semi-involved"... But anyway, the close of this discussion doesn't have to happen as soon as possible at any cost. It is more important that it would be closed well. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

    WP:RM backlog

    There are still 12 unclosed RM discussions from 6–10 December, 4 weeks ago; and one from November. Some of the regular closers seem to have gone on holiday. Help would be appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

    Just noting that the backlog here is still really long - there are over 100 unclosed discussions from December. Sunrise (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    Still 65 from December. A bunch of them depend on closing Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station first. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#National Anthem Act (Initiated 3697 days ago on 25 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Kirchner un speech (Initiated 3722 days ago on 31 October 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Nyttend. Restored for automatic archiving by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 24#August 9 1974 (Initiated 3693 days ago on 29 November 2014)? Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Natg 19. Restored for automatic archiving by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 17#Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa (Initiated 3675 days ago on 17 December 2014)? (Consensus seems clear, but I cannot close it since I am involved and since I am a non-administrator; closing this will help clear the backlog at RFD.) Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

    Another no consensus? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:52, 26 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 talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name"

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion backlog

    Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the following template discussions:

    Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football

    Request close of section Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football#Determination of what country an article relates to, and MOSNUM consequences. Little discussion for a couple of weeks. Related to general sanctions at WP:GS/UKU. Kahastok talk 10:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 3661 days ago on 31 December 2014)

    • This was removed with the edit summary "Not something that needs an admin". That is an invalid reason to remove a request for closure from WP:ANRFC, which handles both discusses that require closure by an admin and those that can be closed by a non-admin.

      Because this discussion is related to the general sanctions at WP:GS/UKU, it would be less controversial for it to be closed by an admin (though it can be closed by a non-admin). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

    Ma Mati Manush

    • Here was a merge proposal Talk:All India Trinamool Congress#Merger proposal (Merge proposals are sometimes very disturbing, we, on Misplaced Pages, have no systematic procedure to close these discussions (like AFD or RM). (I am an involved editor and article creator) --Tito☸Dutta 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @Titodutta: I'm not sure it really does need a formal close; the input given is too limited and is terribly stale (Initiated 3956 days ago on 11 March 2014), so I wouldn't be comfortable formally closing that in any way. You can just probably run things as they are and boldly remove the tags until the question is raised again (if ever), but it may be worth opening a request for comment so the question can be resolved properly on a more long-term basis. By the way, congratulations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#Proposed_technical change: show pages expanded from redirects on Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed

    Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2014 December#Greenbelt Station

    • Now that the original closer has returned from a 4-week absence and made his comments, no further delay is necessary. Several other open RMs hinge on the outcome. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3668 days ago on 24 December 2014)
    It appears that the move was done in December 2014 and that this item can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    Please. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Education#RfC: Postdoctoral research and Alumnus

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Education#RfC: Postdoctoral research and Alumnus (Initiated 3686 days ago on 6 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC: What should be in this article: a short summary of United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012, or a longer version? (Initiated 3685 days ago on 7 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 49#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 49#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner (Initiated 3683 days ago on 9 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her#RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the Article? (Initiated 3670 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the sentence that moral was a problem for Serbian forces? (Initiated 3687 days ago on 5 December 2014) and Talk:Kosovo War#RFC: Should we have the paragraph about the high moral of the Serbian forces in this article? (Initiated 3687 days ago on 5 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course (Initiated 3681 days ago on 11 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC: WP:WEIGHT in the Oseltamivir article given direct contradiction between Cochrane review and the consensus of medical authorities (Initiated 3684 days ago on 8 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack/Archive 3#Request for comment on media section (Initiated 3690 days ago on 2 December 2014)? The "Media coverage" section is currently in the article. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Tenchi Muyo! characters#RfC: Should a certain fictional character be classified as omnipotent, or near omnipotent? (Initiated 3673 days ago on 19 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hamas#RfC: "Hamas vs European Council" European Court's decision. Should the following related information be included ? (Initiated 3671 days ago on 21 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christ myth theory#RfC: Is the 1977 statement "no serious scholar..." by M. Grant in the "Criticism" section true today? (Initiated 3655 days ago on 6 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Things have moved on and this can now be closed with no assessment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh (Initiated 3691 days ago on 1 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)

    Template talk:Infobox album#"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox album#"Executive producers" parameter re-proposal (Initiated 3670 days ago on 22 December 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn#Merge Leelah's Law

    It looks like this has been sufficiently debated. An involved editor went ahead and performed the merge, but it was reverted by another involved editor. I think we need an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. StAnselm (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 3649 days ago on 12 January 2015)

    • I've looked at this, StAnselm, and although the conclusion appears to be obvious at first glance, I think it might still be a little too early to close. Better to give it another few days, so that it's absolutely clear that everyone's had every chance to make their case; otherwise there's a risk of the close being overturned for being premature.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Although a consensus appears to have been reached and sufficient time passed to gather comments, another user reverted my merge/redirect of Leelah's Law into Death of Leelah Alcorn due to my having started the discussion and not waiting longer, so an uninvolved editor would be appreciated to close this, thanks! Reywas92 02:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 8

    Seven discussions still open. Erpert 05:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1#Duplicate summaries from other pages RFC

    It was archived. The RfC is still relevant to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 18#The Weight of Chains 2

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 18#The Weight of Chains 2 (Initiated 3643 days ago on 18 January 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact

    Agreement is to overturn. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

     Done Sunrise (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division

    Discussion has been ongoing for two months and it's only been getting more heated. No sign of consensus for merging in sight. (Initiated 3684 days ago on 8 December 2014) Alakzi (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

    Talk:Kurds#RFC: Regarding Kurds/Iran

    Could an experienced editor, preferably an admin, close this RFC (Initiated 3663 days ago on 29 December 2014). It concerns whether there should be references in the lead to the Kurds being an "Iranian people". It's a highly contentious topic that is prone to drive-by edit-warring. A proposal to resolve the issue was made in the following thread and discussion now seems to come to an end. But the drive-by edit warring continues. It would be good to see if we have a long-term solution out of the RFC, backed by an experienced editor's assessment. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 December 30

    Would an experienced editor or an admin please close these TfD discussions? It seems like there's a backlog of TfDs to be closed. Thanks in advance!

    - tucoxn\ 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

    RfC on use of "conspiracy theory" in first sentence

    Hi, our RfC expired today. Would someone please review and close? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

     Done by Nyttend. Restored for automatic archiving by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    Category: