Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 23. (BOT) |
|||
| Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
====[[Talk:Katherine Johnson#RfC: Should we use her maiden name for some parts of the article and her married name for other parts of the article?]]==== |
====[[Talk:Katherine Johnson#RfC: Should we use her maiden name for some parts of the article and her married name for other parts of the article?]]==== |
||
This RfC {{initiated|04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_Johnson&diff=767141093&oldid=766386112 recently expired]. Needs a close. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
This RfC {{initiated|04:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Katherine_Johnson&diff=767141093&oldid=766386112 recently expired]. Needs a close. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
==== [[Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#RFC on including Russian influence into the election]] ==== |
|||
Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly assess the consensus [[Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#RFC on including Russian influence into the election|there]]? {{Initiated|15 January 2017}} Thanks, — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 03:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Deletion discussions=== |
===Deletion discussions=== |
||
Revision as of 03:10, 26 February 2017
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 12 August 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
Administrative discussions
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Initiated 2774 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Noting that the subthread regarding sanctions proposed against Petergstrom has been open for over a week now. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
RfCs
Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs
Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 2845 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- That's a big one, which looks like consensus to me but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Would some kind soul go through the closing motions? (Initiated 2854 days ago on 18 November 2016) — JFG talk 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots (Initiated 2820 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template (Initiated 2814 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead (Initiated 2822 days ago on 20 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christmas#RFC - Date formats (Initiated 2814 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes (Initiated 2812 days ago on 30 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The RfC (Initiated 2808 days ago on 3 January 2017) was ended by Legobot after the normal thirty days: consensus on the primary issue had been achieved well before that; but there is still disagreement upon the scope of the RfC - does the outcome apply only to the Star Trek: Discovery article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note that this discussion has been moved to this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles (Initiated 2812 days ago on 30 December 2016) (using the date from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner due to the close relationship between the two discussions)? Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? (Initiated 2803 days ago on 7 January 2017) Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2804 days ago on 6 January 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvoled and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus here. (Initiated 2803 days ago on 8 January 2017) Apologies in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Experienced and uninvolved editor requested to evaluate this RfC (Initiated 2803 days ago on 7 January 2017). Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This RfC (Initiated 2808 days ago on 3 January 2017) finished after 30 days of discussion, and I have now closed it to prevent the discussion from overrunning. This was merely a housekeeping closure; I have not determined a result, so I would like an administrator to override my closure with a result. Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Casey Affleck#RfC about details in Early Life section (Initiated 2808 days ago on 3 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images (Initiated 2806 days ago on 5 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award (Initiated 2805 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award ? Thanks, --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section (Initiated 2805 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years (Initiated 2798 days ago on 13 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter (Initiated 2803 days ago on 8 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy (Initiated 2815 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. (Initiated 2786 days ago on 25 January 2017) 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This RFC (Initiated 2776 days ago on 4 February 2017) has run 2 weeks and is pretty quiet now. Needs a close. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This RFC (Initiated 2796 days ago on 15 January 2017) needs a close. Thank youCasprings (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus. (Initiated 2794 days ago on 16 January 2017) George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2790 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2788 days ago on 22 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion (Initiated 2791 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced and uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC? (Initiated 2788 days ago on 23 January 2017)? It would also be advised to take the subsequent discussion, Talk:2017_World_Rally_Championship#Top-level_article into account when closing this one, as the RFC participants posted contributions relevant to the RFC question in that discussion as well. Thanks, Tvx1 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved sysop assess the consensus at Talk:Tomas_Gorny#Request_for_Comment_.5BRfC.5D:_Should_an_article_written_by_a_Forbes_staff_writer_be_kept.3F? This RfC (Initiated 2785 days ago on 25 January 2017) needs closed. I should note that there are SPA accounts that joined the discussion in order to add a comment to delete the source. Eliko007 (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This RfC (Initiated 2786 days ago on 25 January 2017) recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly assess the consensus there? (Initiated 2796 days ago on 15 January 2017) Thanks, — JFG talk 03:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.
Any thoughts on that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)- @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Marcocapelle, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. Schwede66 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
Other types of closing requests
Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion on splitting List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - initiated in 2014 with last comments added in early 2016. In my opinion there is a consensus to split, but since i initiated the discussion - i would like an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Close to 60 in backlog and elapsed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved party to close the discussion. (Initiated 2779 days ago on 1 February 2017) --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)