Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) |
TonyBallioni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
====[[Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox]]==== |
====[[Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox]]==== |
||
{{Initiated|18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox]]? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
{{Initiated|18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox]]? Thanks, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
||
:{{nd}} no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) |
|||
====[[Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments]]==== |
====[[Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments]]==== |
||
Revision as of 15:54, 21 May 2020
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
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 11 October 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 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 closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.
If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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.
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. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
RfCs
(Initiated 1729 days ago on 16 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Israel#RfC: Pie chart? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1723 days ago on 21 February 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Players#RfC on Honours section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes AND Rfc regarding the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries infobox template
(Initiated 1719 days ago on 26 February 2020) & (Initiated 1711 days ago on 4 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at these related RfCs here & here. This may be a difficult close, as the conversation has had a tenancy to spill over into other talk page sections and overlaps with other RfCs. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- Note to closer: A participant discussion is taking place here with the hope of resolving or partly resolving the first of these RfCs without the need for a formal close. With any luck, that discussion may resolve or narrow the issues of the first RfC. I do not believe its creator, Davemoth, intended it to resolve the issues raised in the second RfC however.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1718 days ago on 27 February 2020) Requesting an administrator to please close the RfC and ensuing discussions there, since there is already a consensus not to add Josephus' Vita to the Vita Disambiguation page.Davidbena (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1713 days ago on 3 March 2020) RFC has been open for 15 days, but has seen no new participation in 11 days. An administrative close will likely be needed, and sooner seems better than later. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1706 days ago on 10 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Not done no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1704 days ago on 11 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bakarkhani#RfC about the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not done no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1702 days ago on 14 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#RfC about Sentence in Lede on GRU Indictments? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1701 days ago on 15 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar#RfC about allegations of an affair? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1699 days ago on 16 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about statements from former members of the MEK? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1697 days ago on 19 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess if, and if yes what, consensus was reached at Talk:Birds of Prey (2020 film)#RfC? Note there is some discussion immediately above the RfC that should be considered. thank you. ToeFungii (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1694 days ago on 21 March 2020) I would like a formal closure of this RFC (includes reference to the accompanying discussion above) by an uninvolved editor. --Cold Season (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1693 days ago on 23 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Down syndrome#RfC on the first part of the first sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1691 days ago on 24 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: North Korea in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1691 days ago on 25 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Religion in Albania#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1688 days ago on 28 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Women's rights in Iran#RFC on Bayat's fear? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1686 days ago on 30 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Simvastatin#Clarification of RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1685 days ago on 31 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethosuximide#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1684 days ago on 31 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Project Veritas#RfC on motives for targeting ACORN? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1683 days ago on 1 April 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1682 days ago on 3 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Dershowitz#RfC on Menetrez response? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1677 days ago on 8 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in Greece#RfC on "concern that Turkey may deliberately send infected refugees... to spread the virus through the camps"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1675 days ago on 10 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New York City Subway#Rfc about station layouts? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1674 days ago on 10 April 2020) Would an administrator assess the consensus at the discussions of this page. The discussion is starting to slow down and I think now would be the time for a close. Interstellarity (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Doing... Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1674 days ago on 11 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at this discussion? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1673 days ago on 11 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Requiring non-free content to indicate that in their filenames? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1671 days ago on 13 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1671 days ago on 13 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deep state in the United States#RfC: Should the lead paragraph include explicit mention of non-conspiracy theories of the Deep state in the United State as detailed in existing body text and footnotes?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1671 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RFC: West Bank village articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1670 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an editor assess consensus and close this RfC when appropriate? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1668 days ago on 17 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should this article include Tara Reade's criminal complaint against Joe Biden?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1665 days ago on 19 April 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#RfC: Is African Independent a reliable source? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1661 days ago on 24 April 2020) Formal close needed SpinningSpark 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1654 days ago on 1 May 2020) Would an administrator who has not edited the article assess consensus and close this RfC when appropriate? Thanks--Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although we have received many very helpful observations, suggestions, opinions, and points of order (for lack of a better term), we unfortunately have not reached consensus. I therefore support Freeknowledgecreator's request for closure. (I posted the RfC.) Thank you! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 25 | 18 | 43 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Time to close AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lupe Hernández
(Initiated 1649 days ago on 6 May 2020) This article Lupe Hernández has now been up for deletion for another 7 days after the AFD was relisted. I think it's time to close this debate. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Copyright P backlog
There is a huge backlog at the WP:COPYPROB listings section. If there is anyone who is familiar with CRP who could alleviate this issue, it would be appreciated. 92.9.147.195 (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1911 days ago on 18 August 2019): Discussion longstanding and somewhat scattered with additional comments at Talk:Radagast#Merge and separate merge discussions of other Middle-earth articles on the talk page; there was also an AfD from 12 November 2019 resulting in Keep. I attempted close as recorded at the end of the discussion at 19:13, 12 February 2020 but this was reverted at 16:08, 18 March 2020, so please close. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1819 days ago on 17 November 2019)
Please determine the consensus (if any) at Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship#Map. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Note: An RfC has just started to discuss whether there should be a map at all. Therefore this discussion may be void after the RfC closes.
SSSB (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)- Note: That RfC has finished and we still need this discussion to be closed. Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: The discussion has been archived: Talk:Global warming/Archive 80#Second discussion on titles for potential move request
(Initiated 1804 days ago on 2 December 2019) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request. Various topics may require assessment: A) is there consensus for/against a split/fork between 'Climate Change' and 'Global warming' B) Is there consensus to start a rename proposal for either of the two options on the table B) is there consensus to wait a period of time for more developments/research before making an official move. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1746 days ago on 30 January 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus and close this merge proposal? It's not a long discussion, but it has been there since 30 January. Crossroads -talk- 06:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1708 days ago on 8 March 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Newslaundry on OpIndia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Cunard, I noticed that you restored this discussion from the archive and then listed it here for closure. This discussion was actually an ordinary discussion and not an RfC. If you believe a formal closure would be helpful, that is totally fine, but I think this request belongs in the #Other types of closing requests section. Thanks for keeping all of the RfCs in order – it's something I really appreciate! — Newslinger talk 10:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Newslinger (talk · contribs), and thank you for the excellent work you've done at WP:RSN and WP:ANRFC! I have moved this close request from the #RfCs section to the #Other types of closing requests section. There has been substantial discussion about the reliability of the source, so I think a close would be helpful to determine whether the source can be used to verify the proposed material. If you think the issue is already resolved or a close would not be helpful, I am fine with withdrawing this close request. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think a withdrawal is needed. This discussion will be, in all likelihood, the first of many discussions on this source, and a closure would probably be helpful. — Newslinger talk 11:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Newslinger (talk · contribs), and thank you for the excellent work you've done at WP:RSN and WP:ANRFC! I have moved this close request from the #RfCs section to the #Other types of closing requests section. There has been substantial discussion about the reliability of the source, so I think a close would be helpful to determine whether the source can be used to verify the proposed material. If you think the issue is already resolved or a close would not be helpful, I am fine with withdrawing this close request. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1689 days ago on 27 March 2020) It would be helpful for an admin to assess consensus and close this discussion about a timely topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Joe Biden#Tara Reade alleged Biden "penetrated [her] with his fingers" without her consent
(Initiated 1686 days ago on 29 March 2020) Please review Talk:Joe Biden#Tara Reade alleged Biden "penetrated [her] with his fingers" without her consent. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
merger discussion at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra
(Initiated 1683 days ago on 1 April 2020) at Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra#Proposed merge of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Pune into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Maharashtra. To be fair, there is one comment against the merge in on the talkpage, out of the discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1656 days ago on 28 April 2020) Should his article state that he is Jewish? People have opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
BLP issue at Allegations against Joe Biden
(Initiated 1656 days ago on 29 April 2020) There's been an extended talk page discussion and poll, after an editor several times replaced an image of Biden's accuser -- which had been in place since near the time the article was created -- with a compound image in which Biden is shown alongside the accuser. Could a BLP-oriented Admin please have a look at this and advise as appropriate. After a brief respite with talk page discussion underway, the side-by-side illustration was again substituted this morning, so a timely review would help us move forward one way or the other. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1651 days ago on 4 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Collaboration group? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)