Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
+DYK rfc close request
Line 135: Line 135:
====[[Talk:African humid period#Merger discussion with Neolithic subpluvial]]====
====[[Talk:African humid period#Merger discussion with Neolithic subpluvial]]====
{{Initiated|17:41, 6 January 2019}} Greetings, could an experienced editor see if this little-frequented discussion has a consensus for or against a merge? [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
{{Initiated|17:41, 6 January 2019}} Greetings, could an experienced editor see if this little-frequented discussion has a consensus for or against a merge? [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]], [[Special:CentralAuth/Jo-Jo Eumerus|contributions]]) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

====[[Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Commas in DYK]]====
{{Initiated|23:21, 6 January 2019}} Hi. Would an experienced editor please close this RfC? Thanks, --[[User:DannyS712|DannyS712]] ([[User talk:DannyS712|talk]]) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line====
====Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line====

Revision as of 00:05, 6 February 2019

    Shortcuts

    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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

    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 1 June 2025); 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 a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

    On average, it takes two or three weeks after the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

    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.

    To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note which allows archiving of the completed request.

    Requests for closure

    See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Administrative discussions

    Place new administrative discussions above this line

    RfCs

    Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.

    (Initiated 2479 days ago on 17 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm going to have to come back to this one, because it, along with Racism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) look to be a combination of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR (the article titles scream it to begin with), while the RFC feels like just the end result of bureaucratizing all the problems of a POVFORK/OR combo, too. Incidentally, the articles smell of sock / possibly-banned-users (at cursory inspection; they're also relatively recently created). I can dive deeper into it if truly nobody else is going to (and if I even have time), but this looks like it could be an unnecessary pain to sift through when there might be more overriding/fundamental issues. I dunno;I might just be crazy. Others with better knowledge of British politics should please feel free to deal with this. --slakr\ talk / 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject, so I would strongly suggest that the task of resolving this group of RfCs (some 18 of them!) should be assigned to a group of three administrators rather than simply "an experienced editor." Involved editors have already been making changes, such as this, to the article on the basis of perceived consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that because "the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject" and because of the socking mentioned by slakr, it is likely better to have a panel of three admins close the RfC. Pinging Primefac (talk · contribs), who closed one of the RfCs, for your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I bailed on it because it was just such a massive task. I don't think we need a three-editor panel for all of them (some of the discussions like #10 are nearly unanimous) but it might be worthwhile for some of the more nuanced ones. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
      Greetings, Primefac. I maintain that one and the same group of at least three admins handles this. It's not so much an issue of difficulty as much as of the need for a consistent and consolidated process. It's a rather large RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 2396 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism

    (Initiated 2390 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: ADL criticism

    (Initiated 2390 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: ADL criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: ADL criticism (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 11#Request for comment: Periodic table article as three-peat TFA

    (Initiated 2389 days ago on 16 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 11#Request for comment: Periodic table article as three-peat TFA? There is related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Result of recent RfC?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)

    (Initiated 2388 days ago on 17 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)? Please close this RfC after 16 January 2019. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 156#"Datebot" (limited_scope) without closure (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series

    (Initiated 2385 days ago on 20 December 2018) This RfC and the one immediately below are part of an ongoing dispute regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht as a military honor. See related discussions at MILHIST project: [1][2] –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945

    (Initiated 2384 days ago on 21 December 2018) See above for details. –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.

    (Initiated 2382 days ago on 23 December 2018) As this RfC approaches the 30 days mark and a lack of recent editor involvement, I believe the responses to date would require an uninvolved editor with closure experience to determine the appropriate outcome or extend the discussion. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Indeed the discussion had stopped, and yet the initiator, despite requesting closure above, has unilaterally reopened it past the 30-day standard. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not unilaterally reopen the RfC, I just reinstated the template with new data stamp due to Legobot removing it before the discussion was formally closed, per instruction at WP:RFCEND. Please assume good faith and do not accuse me of starting a new parallel discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 22:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article?

    (Initiated 2381 days ago on 24 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article? discussion? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     On hold This has only been open 17 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Matthias Corvinus#RfC: information about John Hunyadi in this article

    (Initiated 2381 days ago on 24 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Matthias Corvinus#RfC: information about John Hunyadi in this article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Oswald Boelcke#Request for comment: Boelcke's legacy

    (Initiated 2380 days ago on 25 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswald Boelcke#Request for comment: Boelcke's legacy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Eva Bartlett#RfC

    (Initiated 2378 days ago on 27 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eva Bartlett#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk

    (Initiated 2378 days ago on 27 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Doing... ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold waiting for response from Winged Blades of Godric ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Tamika Mallory#RfC on anti-semitism in lede

    (Initiated 2377 days ago on 28 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tamika Mallory#RfC on anti-semitism in lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

    (Initiated 2375 days ago on 30 December 2018) Seems clear there is no consensus for this proposal, though it has the occasional post from editors but mostly repetition of same arguments. There have been several complaints (see talk page) that the proposal is interfering with the function of the COI noticeboard (it should have been created on the talk page). Previous attempt to move it to the talk page was reverted with crude language from two users, one of which is the proposer. I suspect the proposer will only accept an admin closing this. Note that this is the 2nd RFC on the topic (the first was closed after 10 days in 2015), with no change of proposal, and IMO no change of arguments made or balance of opinion on the project. At the very least, could an admin move this to talk, to enable the COI noticeboard to function properly. -- Colin°Talk 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Being done by GoldenRing, Fish and karate, and Ymblanter... See discussion at WP:AN#Forming a panel. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on naming guidelines when a person has plead the Alford plea, whether the parenthetical disambiguator "(criminal)" should be used

    (Initiated 2366 days ago on 7 January 2019) Please could an experienced closer close this. There are good arguments either side and editors have expressed that this should be closed. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:African humid period#Merger discussion with Neolithic subpluvial

    (Initiated 2368 days ago on 6 January 2019) Greetings, could an experienced editor see if this little-frequented discussion has a consensus for or against a merge? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RfC: Commas in DYK

    (Initiated 2367 days ago on 6 January 2019) Hi. Would an experienced editor please close this RfC? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line

    Deletion discussions

    CFDs (general)

    (Initiated 2420 days ago on 15 November 2018) General comment about CFD closures (not sure if this is the right place to post but please move it to the correct place if you know a better place): there has been hardly any administrators' closures at WP:CFD for multiple weeks on a row now. Consequently, the backlog is growing rapidly. Would a few administrators tackle the pile together please? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 29#Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region)

    (Initiated 2406 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 29#Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region)? The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Category:Palestinian Christian communities

    (Initiated 2405 days ago on 30 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Category:Palestinian Christian communities? The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#People of African descent

    (Initiated 2398 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Afrotropic ecozone biota

    (Initiated 2398 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Supercentenarian CFDs

    (Initiated 2398 days ago on 7 December 2018) At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, lot of these that have been open for a month. They probably won't be difficult closes, but this topic has a way of always being controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to the supercentenarian CfDs:
    1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:African-American supercentenarians
    2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Singaporean supercentenarians
    3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Spanish supercentenarians
    4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Nigerian supercentenarians
    5. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Hungarian supercentenarians
    6. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:German supercentenarians
    7. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Turkish supercentenarians
    8. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Ukrainian supercentenarians
    9. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Puerto Rican supercentenarians
    10. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Norwegian supercentenarians
    Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cfr of Category:Real Madrid presidents

    (Initiated 2361 days ago on 13 January 2019) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 13#Category:Real Madrid presidents Two admins made "speedy renaming" vote and one more user support the move as well as me as nominator. Matthew hk (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal#Merger proposal

    (Initiated 2731 days ago on 8 January 2018) This is getting complicated. I think the article in question should probably be trashed, thus Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astronomical_bodies_in_pseudoscience_and_the_paranormal, but User:Jehochman requested that we not have the discussion so that the merger discussion could end. I think there are bigger issues at play (we've discussed a bit on Jehochman's talk page), and he suggested I request a snow close for the merger discussion, which, as the AfD nominator, I would agree to though I'd like the discussion to continue for how to handle astronomical pseudoscience. In any case, in need of an admin to sort it out. jps (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion that is linked directly here was initiated by Richard3120 (talk · contribs) at 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) - more than a year ago. Despite being described as a merge request (it begins with a link to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#MERGE REQUESTS), it seems to indicate that another closely-related discussion took place elsewhere in December 2017 - but there is no link to that other discussion. It appears to have been intended to be no more than a notification of another discussion (in line with WP:MULTI), but the sentence "Discuss here." means that other people have used it as the actual discussion venue. @Richard3120: where was that earlier discussion held? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64: I'm not aware of another discussion having taken place. I just opened the discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal#Merger proposal on 8 January 2018 as an uninvolved editor, per a request from the IP address 108.210.216.182 made at WP:PM on 23 December 2017. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon

    (Initiated 2464 days ago on 2 October 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2019_Indigenous_Peoples_March_Incident#Merger_proposal

    (Initiated 2345 days ago on 29 January 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident#Merger proposal? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=881970138"