Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) let's see if Cluebot deletes this again - leave it set up just like this, please, experimentally |
Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) Delisting The Grange, Broadhembury: the last comment on that RfC implies that the participants do not wish it to be formally closed at this point, and I do not believe it is feasible to do so. The participants can relist it if they wish. |
||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
====Proposed draftspace deletion RFC==== |
====Proposed draftspace deletion RFC==== |
||
Would someone (not necessarily an admin) close [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion|the RFC about a proposed draftspace deletion]]? (archive 128) {{initiated|20 May 2016|done=no}} -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) |
Would someone (not necessarily an admin) close [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_128#RfC:_Proposed_draftspace_deletion|the RFC about a proposed draftspace deletion]]? (archive 128) {{initiated|20 May 2016|done=no}} -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
====[[Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury#Request for comment made]]==== |
|||
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury#Request for comment made]] {{Initiated|12 May 2016}}? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Price of medications]]==== |
====[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Price of medications]]==== |
||
Revision as of 19:27, 7 July 2016
The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. 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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 18 June 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia: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
Merge discussion
Please close the merge discussion of time loop and time slip into time travel in fiction. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 2987 days ago on 14 May 2016)
Requests for comment
Please close this RfC, which has run its course, and which I've just had to save from bot archival. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: (Initiated 3037 days ago on 25 March 2016). It's not all that long, as these things go. The consensus, on a policy, evidence, and reasoned-argument basis, is pretty easy to determine despite the lack of a snowball in either direction. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please, please, please! Close this ancient RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There's currently an edit war between the RfC participants over whether to close or extend the RfC beyond 30 days. Can a non-involved, preferably Admin, editor intervene and resolve one way or the other? At the moment it's "closed" because I have not reverted the last revert, but I expect it will get re-opened, then re-closed, again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator under WP:CLOSE is respectfully requested, as neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. We may expect the closing statement to be closely scrutinized. RfC launched 23 March 2016, most recent comment 1 May 2016. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter (Initiated 3036 days ago on 26 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I make a formal request for closure of this RfC. I believe there is consensus around the proposal made by Special:Contributions/87.162.74.84 (Initiated 2976 days ago on 25 May 2016). 79.64.199.8 (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- That "consensus" was suddenly established in a later section to make an edit that basically runs against the RfC proposed (and majority-supported) version looks very dubious to me, to say the least. It is unclear if you request the close of the RfC that really runs (Initiated 2998 days ago on 3 May 2016) or of a section that is not a proper WP:RFC. I smell something fishy with that close request. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears to me that the later section is part of the original RfC. See [1]. 79.64.199.8 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Multi-sport event#RfC: Can an acceptable definition be written for Category:Sports festivals? (Initiated 2997 days ago on 4 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#RfC: Which romanization system should be used for pre-division Korean topics? (Initiated 2998 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Time (Electric Light Orchestra album)#RfC: Should Wiki-voice view Time as a story? Keep "Storyline"? (Initiated 3002 days ago on 29 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of world snooker champions#RfC: Should player highlighting indicate whether a player has "competed" or is "active"? (Initiated 2998 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RfC: Is it time to relax a bit on WP:NOSHARE? (Initiated 3002 days ago on 29 April 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Appeal of RevDel usage (Initiated 2998 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Striking !votes (Initiated 2978 days ago on 23 May 2016)? See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFC: when is striking !votes in RFAs OK?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#RFC: Suggestion: Visual Editor Version (Initiated 2996 days ago on 5 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposed draftspace deletion RFC
Would someone (not necessarily an admin) close the RFC about a proposed draftspace deletion? (archive 128) (Initiated 2981 days ago on 20 May 2016) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Price of medications (Initiated 2986 days ago on 15 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:NHL 15#Should New Features be included on NHL articles (Initiated 2983 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#RfC: Should information on the John Miller incident be included in the article? (Initiated 2983 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Some people want this closed as soon as possible, but I believe that an uninvolved but skilled person must determine the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, now is not the time to close it, but I'll leave the request open, just in case. George Ho (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 2959 days ago on 11 June 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- This has now been open for almost three weeks, we're getting a drip-feed of perhaps one or two comments per day after the initial 15 or 20 comments per day, could we now please assess this for closure. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- As the initiator of the RfC I endorse this request for closure. There are increasingly few comments being received and it's been a while since a new argument was presented. A formal close of this is needed as the are strong views both for and against. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. I'm asking for 3 closers, until we get 3 or until a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 2976 days ago on 25 May 2016). Dank, your request for multiple closers sounds weird (how are they going to coordinate, if the point is precisely that they are relatively independent from each other?) but well, whatever works. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Tigraan and Dank: The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it seems reasonable to me but I just asked about the "how". I live and learn. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Tigraan and Dank: The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the timely and contentious nature of the topic, I humbly request closure by an uninvolved administrator of this discussion about moving United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit. (Initiated 2946 days ago on 24 June 2016) — JFG talk 05:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved admin please close the RFC as soon as possible. Two editors with opposing views are now heading towards the boundary of disruptiveness. I'd like to see this closed before it becomes necessary to take administrative action. Mjroots (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Wilyman PhD controversy#RFC: Reasons for not promoting a conference (Initiated 2979 days ago on 22 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Clarification of BIO1E (Initiated 2968 days ago on 2 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Falklands War#RFC:Inclusion of material related to Norwegian listening station (Initiated 2977 days ago on 24 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Common law#Request for comment on "three connotations" (Initiated 2974 days ago on 27 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#RfC: Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request (Initiated 2978 days ago on 23 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Administrators' Noticeboard Discussions
I am requesting a non-involved, experienced administrator to close this clarification request because it has potentially wiki-wide (or at least very broad) implications. It was opened 30 days ago and has received no further comment for the last 24 days. DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Copying my comment from here. I think this is a reasonable request for closure. I read the ANI discussion and found that several admins and editors believe that edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects are not covered by the topic ban. Based on the heated and accusatory comments by several of the involved editors in the discussion, it is clear that to avoid conflict and doubt DrChrissy should get a clear ruling from an uninvolved admin as to whether he can edit those articles.
WP:ANRFC is the correct place to request closure. A request at WP:AN or WP:ANI will be archived without action if an admin does not act on it in time. That no timely action has been taken does not mean DrChrissy should not get closure. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer : Drmicrocap (Initiated 2941 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request DYK topic ban (Initiated 2946 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
This discussion forum has a small backlog with approximately 6 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 21 May 2016. (16:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC))
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
All four "regular" RfD admins have chimed in on this one, so it'll likely sit in the backlogs for a while unless an uninvolved admin attends to it soon. (Initiated 2961 days ago on 9 June 2016) -- Tavix (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)