Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

Ball1.png

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 11 June 2014); 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.

Ball2.png

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.

Billiardball3.png

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.

Requests for closure[edit]

Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bliss (image)#RfC: Inclusion of external links (initiated 16 April 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg No action The discussion has come to a natural end and parties have dispersed. Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the last comments in the section was "...Currently, vote count is 3-3, tie." An uninvolved editor is needed to determine if one side has a stronger policy-based position or if the result is no consensus.

In a recent RfC close, FormerIP (talk · contribs) closed Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#RFC:Ambiguous birth date for William? in favor of one side even though the vote count was also split 3–3. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:File Allocation Table#RFC on length and splits[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:File Allocation Table#RFC on length and splits (initiated 21 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Talk:File Allocation Table/Archive 6#RFC on length and splits. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment some further discussion now at the end of Talk:File Allocation Table. ~KvnG 14:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles[edit]

This has gone on for months, with no consensus to change the guideline, but now proponents of that change are falsely claiming that failure to change consensus amounts somehow to a lack of consensus on what the guideline actually says and means, which is simply not true. It's time this was put to bed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

NFCR discussions[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin/user with some knowledge of copyright/WP:NFCC take a look at this discussion and make a unbiased close? Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Romeo and Juliet#RfC: about Arthur Brooke's and John Swan criticizing the play[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Romeo and Juliet#RfC: about Arthur Brooke's and John Swan criticizing the play (initiated 1 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Honorary degree#Deletion of recipients of honorary degrees category[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorary degree#Deletion of recipients of honorary degrees category (initiated 2 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Iatrogenesis[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the subsections of Talk:Iatrogenesis#Requested move Iatrogenesis → Medical harm (initiated 5 June 2014):

  1. Talk:Iatrogenesis#A layman term for iatrogenesis
  2. Talk:Iatrogenesis#Merge of Iatrogenesis and medical error
  3. Talk:Iatrogenesis#Merge of Iatrogenesis and Medical error Part II

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)#RfC: Character notability (for full articles)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Character notability (for full articles)#RfC: Character notability (for full articles) (initiated 22 May 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "What are the requirements for video game characters to be considered notable enough that they should be allowed to have their own articles? Ideally, the results will be as specific as possible as this has been argued quite hotly for a long time." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Landscape art#RFC: How should the scope of the article be presented in terms of Landscape Photography?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Landscape art#RFC: How should the scope of the article be presented in terms of Landscape Photography? (initiated 22 May 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions for inactive indef blocked users (2014)[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions for inactive indef blocked users (2014) (initiated 14 June 2014)? Please consider the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 2#Rights of indef blocked users in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked? (initiated 29 May 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26#History of the Utah Territory[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 26#History of the Utah Territory? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:English mythology[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:English mythology? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Drosera by synonymy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Civil Rights Museums[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27#Category:Civil Rights Museums? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Template test cases notice#Requested move 24 June 2014[edit]

Requesting an administrator or other uninvolved editor to close Template talk:Template test cases notice#Requested move 24 June 2014 as there are only two editors that have commented on it, and there appears to be a consensus, but since I'm involved and this requested move has been sitting around for two weeks (twice the required one week). Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually this need to be closed by an admin, because the template is move protected. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Any uninvolved editor can close the discussion. If they close it as move, that can be requested at RPP or with a db-g6. If they close it as don't move, then no admin was needed anyways. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 11:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

3 RfDs from June[edit]

These RFDs need either a closure or a relist. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

3 TfDs[edit]

These TFDs need either a closure or a relist. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)