Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
→Requests for comment: requesting closure by uninvolved editor |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
====[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_deprecation_of_Gordon-Conwell's_WRD/WCD/ARDA_&_Pew-Templeton's_GRF]]==== |
====[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_deprecation_of_Gordon-Conwell's_WRD/WCD/ARDA_&_Pew-Templeton's_GRF]]==== |
||
{{initiated|19:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ramos1990|Ramos1990]] ([[User talk:Ramos1990#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ramos1990|contribs]]) 22:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
||
Revision as of 23:00, 12 January 2023
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
The Closure requests 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 appears 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 21 June 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. 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 a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.
A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 670 days ago on 19 September 2022) Alsee (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 641 days ago on 18 October 2022) There haven't been new !votes since 26 October. The discussion has been quite short and a relatively clear consensus has emerged, but some editors still disagree, so a speedy closure by an administrator would be appreciated. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 638 days ago on 21 October 2022) – Its run its course and need an uninvolved eye to judge consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- This ought to be relisted. There are simply too few sources presented to make an informed closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 596 days ago on 3 December 2022) Experienced closer needed here please: there's already been too many comments on this discussion which began generating more heat than light some time ago. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 595 days ago on 3 December 2022) This will need an uninvolved editor to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 578 days ago on 21 December 2022) This will require a close from an editor with experience on WP:BLP issues. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 575 days ago on 23 December 2022) No new comments for over a week. --Firestar464 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 585 days ago on 13 December 2022) The tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 611 days ago on 17 November 2022) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramos1990 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 34 | 38 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 30 | 34 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
(Initiated 605 days ago on 23 November 2022) Already relisted once, the discussion has gone stale. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 571 days ago on 27 December 2022) the discussion has gone stale. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 564 days ago on 3 January 2023) The consensus here is clear that it doesn't warrant a standalone article, and it should be WP:SNOW closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 629 days ago on 30 October 2022). New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 596 days ago on 2 December 2022) Last !vote was 27 days ago, and later discussion among involved editors indicates a lack of ability to develop consensus without formal closure from an uninvolved party. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd add this is probably not suitable for a non-admin close (WP:BADNAC). Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 577 days ago on 21 December 2022) Please review this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 569 days ago on 29 December 2022) – It’s sad, but since multiple editors insist on removing the tag, we need to get this discussion closed. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)