Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 183: Line 183:
====[[WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC|Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC]]====
====[[WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC|Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC]]====
If this goes live in around 12 hours, it will need closers in about a week; please see [[WP:AN#WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC]]. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If this goes live in around 12 hours, it will need closers in about a week; please see [[WP:AN#WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC]]. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 22:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

====[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian]]====
Would an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian]], especially in [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal|this topic ban proposal]]?<p>If there is a consensus for an editing restriction, please log it at [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]] and [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log]].<p>Thanks, [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|contributions]]) 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


=== Other namespaces ===
=== Other namespaces ===

Revision as of 20:15, 26 January 2013

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Most discussions do not need to follow a formal process for closing and summarizing the result.

    Please post new requests at the end of the appropriate section(s).

    Requests for closure

    Article namespace

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Synthesis and sources (initiated 19 October 2012 and a subsection of which is Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Request for Comment) and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot#Request for Comment 2 (initiated 15 November 2012). I have not read the two discussions, though both may be related to the same issue and should likely be considered by the same closer. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: First discussion is now archived at Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_4#Synthesis_and_sources. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Meša Selimović#Ethnicity and understanding of "nacionalnost" in former Yugoslavia (initiated 13 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Discussion now archived at Talk:Meša Selimović/Archives/2012/November. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ALCAT test#RFC:Neutrality and reliable sources (initiated 19 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "Is the lead neutral? It seems to be excessive in dismissing the ALCAT test and objectively labeling it as 'not supported by research'." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joan Crawford#Request for Comment regarding (alleged) bisexuality (initiated 20 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nuveen Investments#RFC Reboot (initiated 6 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:BP#Request for comment (initiated 16 December 2012)? The original question posed was:

    How the 'Environmental record', 'Accidents', and 'Political record' sections of this article, taking account the existing main articles of subsections of these sections, should be cleaned-up and/or developed to ensure their compliance with different Wikipedia policies, inter alia WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP

    Another editor rephrased the question to be: "How about, 'Are the above WP policies being properly applied to this article?'" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cydia#RfC (initiated 13 December 2012)? Please review Talk:Cydia##RfC meta-discussion as well. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of indigenous peoples#RfC: Should the Palestinians be included on the list on the basis of tacit UN recognition since at least 2009? (initiated 14 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 42#Request for Comment -- Introduction first paragraph (initiated 4 December 2012)? The question posed was:

    Should this article refer to the United States as consisting of fifty states and a federal district, or also include the territories as well? It presently notes the country as possessing, rather than being partially comprised of, the territories.

    Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia#Article split (initiated 25 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive#Request for Comment: Result of the Offensive (initiated 25 November 2012)? The question posed was:

    What is the best way to accurately describe the result of this specific offensive? Was it a "strategic Soviet victory" or not? How should that be reflected in the infobox and the article text?

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I contacted Lord Roem (talk · contribs) who indicated he would close the discussion. Cunard (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if anyone would like to close it, please feel free to do so. There was very little discussion though that got anywhere near consensus. :-/ Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hezekiah's Tunnel#RfC: categorization (initiated 1 December 2012)? The question posed was: "Should this page be included in Category:Tunnels in Israel?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish people#RFC: Related ethnic groups (initiated 4 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kukri#RfC: Kukris in popular culture (initiated 14 December 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I request assistance on by what standards examples should be included or not included in this section." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact (initiated 16 December 2012)? The opening poster wrote:

    A previous discussion on the featured-article status of this article resulted in a refusal of this status primarily because of a dispute regarding whether or not the title made assumptions whether or not extraterrestrial contact had occurred, or whether the reference to cultural impact implied that the article should only discuss arts, literature, and society, as opposed to science and technology. Please discuss here what would be a better title in light of the linked discussion.

    Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method#External links to vendors (initiated 13 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chiropractic#RfC perspective from new set of eyes (initiated 7 January 2013)? The RfC tag was removed, and tempers seem to be running high; see Talk:Chiropractic#What else do you suggest?. Feel free to move this to the premature requests section if a close at this time would be premature. Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:In My City#RfC: Is Promotional campaign irrelevant? (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trouble (Leona Lewis song)#How is iTunes messed up (initiated 1 December 2012)? There is disagreement over whether iTunes is an acceptable source to use for the song's release date? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations#RfC:Is the discussed GetEducated.com article credible to be used as a Reliable Source? (initiated 17 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Derwick Associates#RfC: Content to be included (initiated 9 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nayirah (testimony)#RfC: Nayirah (testimony) and Citizens for a Free Kuwait (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:La Luz del Mundo#RfC: Should the Controversies section be merged into the History section? (initiated 20 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Religion#Image (initiated 7 December 2012)? The question posed was: "Do you prefer a Twenty symbol or Twelve symbol image?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Approaching day 10 of discussion. Obvious controversial topic, could use attention. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia namespace

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons? Please also consider John Carter (talk · contribs)'s comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons#Possible wrapup:

    I think that it would make sense, sometime in the future, to have the request for comment here be gone over by someone, possibly uninvolved, who could "boil down" the various comments into clear proposals.

    This could facilitate a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons 2, which would have a clearer scope and outcome. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#New RfC (initiated 22 September 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion is now archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_12#New_RfC. Armbrust The Homonculus 09:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics/GMO articles (initiated 3 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on the article layout of Eurovision Song Contest by country articles (initiated 13 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Actresses categorization (initiated 17 October 2012)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose this motion to drop the restriction on actresses in WP:CATGRS so that we could restore Category:Actresses and foster all relevant subcats, like Category:Actresses by country." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History#inclusion of prehistoric terms in history of country templates and vice versa (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE) (initiated 28 October 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Now archived at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_139#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Formatting of URLs in Infoboxes (initiated 14 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#RFC: Concerning banned and indeffed users (initiated 16 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be appreciated if an experienced editor would look at this RFC to determine what, if any, consensus exists. --Nouniquenames 11:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats#Proposal: citation microformat (initiated 5 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If an admin could take a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Review and determine if there is consensus it would be appreciated. Note that as the discussion deals specifically with non-admin closing, it may be prudent for non-admin closers to avoid closing it. Monty845 23:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RfC: Section headings for horizontal navigation templates (initiated 10 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Closing Wikipedia:MediaWiki messages (initiated 15 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Admin tenure (initiated 17 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China-related articles#Request for Comment: Regarding WP:NC-TW (initiated 18 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging of non-notable albums (initiated 16 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 57#RFC: Soundtrack covers in articles about other media (films, video games, etc.) (initiated 7 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback/Feedback response guidelines#RfC: Formal adoption as a guideline (initiated 9 December 2012)? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Making article page notification mandatory (initiated 12 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:The Core Contest#Request for Comment: Future runnings of the Core Contest (initiated 2 December 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing?

    If there is a consensus for an editing restriction, please log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

    Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the main page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If this goes live in around 12 hours, it will need closers in about a week; please see WP:AN#WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013 RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian, especially in this topic ban proposal?

    If there is a consensus for an editing restriction, please log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log.

    Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Other namespaces

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti (initiated 1 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Version#RfC: Would a standard template for version history tables be helpful for software articles? (initiated 28 November 2012)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2 (initiated 21 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bluerim (initiated 29 November 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johnpacklambert (initiated 12 December 2012)? After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st (initiated 19 November 2012)?

    Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing. It may be best for an admin to close this RfC since a non-admin close was reverted.

    After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Premature close requests

    Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could close and summarise the discussion at WT:DYK#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This has ongoing discussion. Move to premature requests? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks to closers

    Thank you, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs), Sjones23 (talk · contribs), Nouniquenames (talk · contribs), Vanisaac (talk · contribs), Armbrust (talk · contribs), Hex (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), IronGargoyle (talk · contribs), X! (talk · contribs), JzG (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs), Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), BDD (talk · contribs), Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs), Σ (talk · contribs), IRWolfie- (talk · contribs), Srich32977 (talk · contribs), Nyttend (talk · contribs), Jeepday (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), and Noetica (talk · contribs), for your closes. Cunard (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]