Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
→Requests for comment: New request Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
====[[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October#1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight]]==== |
====[[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 October#1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight]]==== |
||
{{initiated|3 October 2022|type=mrv}} [[WP:SNOW]] applies at this point. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
{{initiated|3 October 2022|type=mrv}} [[WP:SNOW]] applies at this point. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]] <sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
====[[Talk:Hurricane_Julia_(2022)#Requested_move_12_October_2022]]==== |
|||
{{Initiated|05:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)|type=mrv}} – Many users had agreed to move this page. This discussion is now 7 days so we need closure this discussion. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: maroon; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:HurricaneEdgar|<span style="color: greenyellow">HurricaneEdgar</span>]] [[HurricaneEdgar|<span style="color: greenyellow"></span>]]</span> 02:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
||
Revision as of 02:25, 19 October 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 16 September 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
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 800 days ago on 8 August 2022) – Natg 19 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to request that the closer take into careful consideration that this discussion seemed to have prior consensus at: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 58#Recent correction to Simple Lists, but it appears the nominator did not agree with that, and indulged in a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPping to canvass by campaigning for their view by starting a new discussion , which was nothing but a form a of stonewalling. Huggums537 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- (Please note I am not seeking any retroactive sanctions against the nominator, only that considerations are taken into account for the outcome of the discussion.) Huggums537 (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Opening an RFC about a major change to policy on the same page as the informal local discussion isn't canvassing, forum shopping, or stonewalling. If you want to accuse me of those again take it to my talk page or ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, I want to avoid any drama [at ANI] or harm to other editors. My only goal is a clear perspective of the circumstances and the right outcome for the discussion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Opening an RFC about a major change to policy on the same page as the informal local discussion isn't canvassing, forum shopping, or stonewalling. If you want to accuse me of those again take it to my talk page or ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 795 days ago on 13 August 2022) - The RfC tag has expired since a month, though I decided to wait until the user who uploaded the map that was the original cause of dispute made a comment on it, but he hasn't edited on Wikipedia since months. Its time to close it. 2804:248:FB6F:4400:B021:971A:800D:7D10 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 788 days ago on 20 August 2022) Discussion ended about a month ago, well ripe for closure now. Iffy★Chat -- 18:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 787 days ago on 21 August 2022). Expired a while ago and participation has tapered off. -sche (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion is incredibly messy. Whoever handles it will need to extremely experienced; honestly, some kind of higher functionary (e.g., a bureaucrat or arbitrator) would be ideal, although I recognize there's only a handful of you and you're all rather busy.—Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)- Eh, that was overstated. Still, the underlying issues are more complex than they would appear to be at first glance, and my own impression is that it might be possible for a deft closer to finesse a compromise position that would satisfy both sides, maybe. Someone with solid experience in making complex closes, and not just potentially controversial ones, would be ideal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 25 August 2024). The RfC was called after an edit dispute that arose over the editions to article lede. Although survey has 8 comments but quite a long discussion was done over it. The dispute is still there and RfC was referred in new discussion where editors viewed that it should have a proper close, so filed for it. USaamo (t@lk) 18:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 775 days ago on 1 September 2022). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 768 days ago on 9 September 2022). The RfC was called following a breakdown in a discussion about peace efforts where a majority of editors were in favour of inclusion [1]. Seeing this, some uninvolved editors advised against calling the RfC in a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment talk page. But it was created anyway and now needs a close so that we can cover the new developments. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 764 days ago on 12 September 2022), the RFC tag has expired. Would appreciate closure :) GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 764 days ago on 13 September 2022) BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 753 days ago on 23 September 2022), though the RFC tag doesn't expire for another week. I just reverted a premature closure by an editor, who suddenly returned to Wikipedia (I hope it's not a sock) after a seven year absence. I should note, the layout of the article (concerning lists of countries) has changed since the opening of this RFC & therefore the RFC's question might now be rendered moot. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 6 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 36 |
| 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 1337 days ago on 17 February 2021) Could any uninvolved editor examine the consensus for a merge of conscious breathing into Breathwork, involving a discussion where I have been a participant. The other part of the proposal (related to Rebirthing (breathwork)) seems to have been satisfactorily resolved. Klbrain (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1323 days ago on 2 March 2021) Could any uninvolved editor examine the consensus for a merge of User-in-the-loop into Human-in-the-loop, involving a discussion where I have been a participant. Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 881 days ago on 19 May 2022) Needs uninvolved editor to evaluate consensus. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 777 days ago on 30 August 2022) - Is there a consensus for the creation of these articles? BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 776 days ago on 1 September 2022) – There haven't been any new participants in several weeks, so closure is probably warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- A sockpuppetry disaster was discovered. Not going to see this closed in a long while. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- One editor made the mistake of thinking that RMs are determined by quantity of !votes rather than quality of arguments. Agree with EW; this MRV is ready for closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there <involved> 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 771 days ago on 5 September 2022) It's been more than 30 days since this new speedy deletion criterion was proposed. Requesting a formal close as this would affect a large number of redirects, present and future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 744 days ago on 3 October 2022) WP:SNOW applies at this point. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 735 days ago on 12 October 2022) – Many users had agreed to move this page. This discussion is now 7 days so we need closure this discussion. HurricaneEdgar 02:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)