Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:06, 13 January 2014 editLibStar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers116,045 edits →Requests for closure← Previous edit Revision as of 06:21, 13 January 2014 edit undoErpert (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers48,360 edits →Requests for closure: entryNext edit →
Line 114: Line 114:
===]=== ===]===
Can an uninvolved editor close this move review discussion? Thanks,--] ]/] 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Can an uninvolved editor close this move review discussion? Thanks,--] ]/] 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
<small>{{comment}} Procedural request. I am '''neutral'''. '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 06:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)</small><br>
I've listed this for closure at WP:AN a few days ago with no action. this is an AfD that now has gone over 12 days and requires closure. thanks. ] (]) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


==]== ==]==

Revision as of 06:21, 13 January 2014

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.

    Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 24 December 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 16 January 2025) except in the case of WP:SNOW.

    Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement 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.

    Notes about closing

    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:Redirects for discussion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion § Discussions 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

    WP:NFCR open discussions

    We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:

    1. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    2. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    3. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
       Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    4. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
       Closed by ‎Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
    5. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
    6. Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review#Second Generation (advertisement)
       Closed by ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs). Armbrust 08:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

    There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:

    1. Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
    2. Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
    3. Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)

    My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).

    The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey (initiated 1 December 2013)? See the subsection Talk:United States#Survey. WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (initiated 18 October 2013)? Please consider the previous RfCs Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 in your closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#Category:Royal_lovers

    Discussion stalled since 8 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

    There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article? (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Misplaced Pages viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote:

    This RfC after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-based removal, a claim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I request) ...

    An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ELNO-based removal). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Note: The discussion was "closed" by User:Thibbs on 11 December 2013 with no comments or interpretations of consensus. Thibbs' edit summary reads: "Closing expired RfC without comment or summary. Someone else can add that if it's felt to be necessary." User:Thibbs was a part of the discussion and his close should probably be reverted per WP:INVOLVED and then the RFC closed appropriately. There has been no discussion since 20 November 2013. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    Objection: Hi ТимофейЛееСуда and others. I just wanted to note that I object to the idea that any of my edits have implicated WP:INVOLVED. We should be clear here that I'm not an admin and that I wasn't performing any kind of administrative action. As noted above, the RfC had already expired and when I "closed" the thread there hadn't been a comment in over 3 weeks. The consensus is exceptionally clear in this case and my neutral "close" (i.e. "without comment or summary") explicitly invited comments from others. Even if I were an admin I'd vouchsafe that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion as I had. Anyway feel free to revert my "closure" if it was indeed inappropriate but I think it would be a ridiculous waste of time, and I disagree that it's "per WP:INVOLVED". -Thibbs (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    No objections to a formal closure with comment and summary of course. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Swdandap malfeasance

    Would an admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Swdandap malfeasance (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    I would also like this looked at and don't feel comfortable doing it myself since another editor thought I was not impartial. Don't think this should be just dropped like the first ANI was regarding same stuff from same person. — Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law (initiated 3 September 2013)? At Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC, the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC is restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:Petronilla of Aragon#Request for comment on main image

    Would an experience editor assess the consensus at Talk:Petronilla_of_Aragon#Request_for_comment_on_main_image which was opened on Oct 9, 2013? The discussion is of moderate length and is in regard to a proposed photo and whether or not it is suitable for the article. Thank you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Days of the year#new sections including for organizations and places named for dates

    The rfc template was removed, so the outcome must have been obvious, but two of us disagree on which way the result went. Could an uninvolved admin please formally close it? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#RfC - Should we change the focus & title of this article?

    This one clearly failed to obtain consensus. For the record, I !voted in favor of the changes. I'm half-tempted to close it myself as "no consensus" but perhaps an uninvolved editor may wish to summarize the discussion or include recommendations on how best to proceed forward. (No admin action is required I don't think, so any experienced editor is welcome to close it.) Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

    Talk:A Boy Was Born#Should the lead sentence include the phrase "(correctly titled A Boy was Born)"?

    Discussion is calming down a bit. --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

    Template_talk:Track_listing#Collapsibility

    Please disposition Template_talk:Track_listing#Collapsibility. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 29#Template:Finalhist

    open for over a month, including the multiple relistings. Frietjes (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Derby (cricket)

    Has gone over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis

    Was archived after several dozen support and oppose entries along with many additional comments, includes a community sanction proposal that needs uninvolved administrator closure (and if consensus for found, enactment). Was open for six days, active for four then idle for two and archived. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise)#Proposed merge with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

    It needs a closer. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Move review/Log/2013 December#Haile Selassie

    Can an uninvolved editor close this move review discussion? Thanks,--Cúchullain /c 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Derby (cricket)

     Comment: Procedural request. I am neutral. Erpert 06:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    I've listed this for closure at WP:AN a few days ago with no action. this is an AfD that now has gone over 12 days and requires closure. thanks. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Grameen Social Business Model

    Has gone over the 7 days. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Closure requests: Difference between revisions Add topic