Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Restored revision 1095365864 by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk): Undoing mess
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 121: Line 121:
{{Initiated|04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)}}
{{Initiated|04:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)}}
Needs a formal close. [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|Iamreallygoodatcheckers]] ([[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|talk]]) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Needs a formal close. [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|Iamreallygoodatcheckers]] ([[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|talk]]) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

==== [[Talk:Claire_Danes#RFC_-_Claire_Danes_persona_non_grata_resolution]] ====
{{Initiated|22:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)}}
Request closure of this RFC. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 23:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


==== 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 23:51, 27 June 2022

    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 29 July 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. 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

    (Initiated 821 days ago on 30 May 2022) I request that this be formally closed. It appears that there may be a consensus here, but the result of the discussion needs to be logged. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

    Requests for comment

    (Initiated 897 days ago on 14 March 2022) No new comments have been made for one and a half months. I think it's ready for closure. WARNING: The subject is very controversial and the discussion has become very extensive (I apologise for my part in having perhaps contributed to that excess...). Closure would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done nableezy - 20:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 852 days ago on 29 April 2022) We have decided to close this RFC to partially rewrite it and start a new one. A formal closure is necessary in order not to create confusion with the new RFC that will be started. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with User:SDC's closure request. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the ANI thread closed yesterday. I'll ask on the article talk page if the participants there still wish the RfC to be closed. Question asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RfC would benefit from closing just so it's done. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 12:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 833 days ago on 18 May 2022) Vote count is 7-1. Last vote was June 11; the three more-recent posts have been about non-contentious technicalities. The page itself seems pretty lifeless, but I don't want to close myself because I responded to the RfC and it involves everyone's favorite perennial source. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done nableezy - 20:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 831 days ago on 19 May 2022) Request formal closure of this expired RFC since it was started to deal with a lengthy and heated debate, involves RL political issues, and may attract real-life attention. Abecedare (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done nableezy - 21:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 830 days ago on 21 May 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 824 days ago on 27 May 2022) Discussion has appears to have slowed (there is some additional new discussion in a sub-section on sources that shouldn't affect how this is closed) and the RfC template was automatically removed due to expiration. —Locke Coletc 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done nableezy - 20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 819 days ago on 31 May 2022) Requesting closure of RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles. This discussion has stagnated for long periods of time and there is no new arguments being added. It would be helpful if the closer had knowledge of Wikipedia naming guidelines, notability guidelines, and potentially a basic knowledge of history or linguistics. Poketama (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It would also be helpful if the closer could wade through a morass of discussion caused by a poorly-formatted and vague RfC. What is really needed is a more focused question, rather than some request that Indigenous names must be included in lede and infobox regardless of appropriateness or reliable sourcing. Consensus from experienced editors seems to be that these should be included on a case by case basis according to existing Wikipolicy, rather than mandated. The WP:SPA nature of editor raising the RfC should laso be noted. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited in a clarification on the question shortly after posting the RfC and I think it can be resolved from the content of the discussion what the result was, rather than re-doing an RfC that has taken months. Users who were unsure of the meaning of the question still gave thorough explanations of their opinions, which can be used to reach consensus.
    Additionally, the meaning of the question has repeatedly been explained to Pete. I'll note that Pete is one of the primary parties in the dispute and thanked me for starting the RfC, as well as doing the formatting of the RfC themselves (See here: User_talk:Poketama#RfC) Poketama (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true. Still the question is poorly formed and the discussion consequently rambling. Making Indigenous placenames mandatory in the lead - for that is the effect your question seeks - is very poor wikipolicy. There may be no reliable sources, and WP:UNDUE always applies. The way forward, as found in discussion aimed at resolving the RfC, is for involved editors to collaborate in writing an essay giving guidance for the case-by-case decisions favoured by most respondents. Your contributions in that effort would be most welcome; this is something we have to get right and opening the gates for crusaders from either side is just going to turn Australian geographical articles into a bitter morass for years as cultural warriors throw stones at one another. We work together to produce a useful and respected encyclopaedia, not to sing our team songs as we piss in our opponents' beer. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC tag shouldn't have been deleted, but rather left to expire. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 821 days ago on 30 May 2022) Needs a formal close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 822 days ago on 28 May 2022) Request closure of this RFC. Slywriter (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V May Jun Jul Aug Total
    CfD 0 0 0 18 18
    TfD 0 0 1 7 8
    MfD 0 0 0 3 3
    FfD 0 0 0 3 3
    RfD 0 0 3 72 75
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

    Other types of closing requests

    (Initiated 1127 days ago on 28 July 2021) Major backlog of requests needing closure czar 17:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 939 days ago on 31 January 2022) Please review Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go#"Alleged". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I oppose this close request. Jax 0677 is requesting to close a normal talk page discussion, where multiple editors disagree with his use of "alleged" and "allegedly" in one way or another. Such a close is non-standard and not beneficial to anyone except for Jax 0677. Others might want to comment on the topic. For example, Jax 0677 was recently involved in an edit war at the article with Zedembee, who last edited on June 18th. Zedembee's last edit was to challenge Jax 0677. So Zedembee might want to comment in the discussion when returning. GBFEE (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 896 days ago on 16 March 2022) Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading