Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
→Talk:Karna Solskjær#Merger proposal: sig needed |
→Requests for comment: new request |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
{{Initiated|13:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)}} |
{{Initiated|13:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)}} |
||
Discussion seems finished. Most were of one view, although some raised procedural concerns that may prevent concensus (my fault). Would like an impartial closure who can say what the consensus was exactly. [[User:Wizmut|Wizmut]] ([[User talk:Wizmut|talk]]) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
Discussion seems finished. Most were of one view, although some raised procedural concerns that may prevent concensus (my fault). Would like an impartial closure who can say what the consensus was exactly. [[User:Wizmut|Wizmut]] ([[User talk:Wizmut|talk]]) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
||
=== [[Talk%3ARichard_Wagner#Wagner_infobox_rfc]] === |
|||
{{Initiated|15:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)}} |
|||
This discussion will need a formal close. Thanks! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 16:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)#RfC:_Ballard_and_Jordan_Peterson_discussing_the_film]]=== |
===[[Talk:Sound_of_Freedom_(film)#RfC:_Ballard_and_Jordan_Peterson_discussing_the_film]]=== |
||
Revision as of 16:36, 30 July 2023
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
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 31 August 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 and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. 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}}.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 462 days ago on 26 June 2023) Discussion seems finished. Most were of one view, although some raised procedural concerns that may prevent concensus (my fault). Would like an impartial closure who can say what the consensus was exactly. Wizmut (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 449 days ago on 9 July 2023) This discussion will need a formal close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 429 days ago on 29 July 2023) Isnt being discussed anymore and a number of socks have made this thread into a complete mess. someone please look at it --FMSky (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 18 | 23 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94 | 94 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 695 days ago on 5 November 2022) - Merge proposal with clear consensus to proceed, and no new comments for months. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 604 days ago on 4 February 2023) Long-running discussion that will probably need a formal close to prevent future edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 508 days ago on 11 May 2023) It appears that there won't be any more comments, and I assume that there are enough discussion to draw conclusions for both sub-discussions. Prarambh20 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 505 days ago on 14 May 2023) Three-part discussion was never closed, now archived. starship.paint (exalt) 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 477 days ago on 11 June 2023) Discussion has run its course and would benefit from an uninvolved closure. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 476 days ago on 12 June 2023) Discussion is split, with only a slight majority in favor of merging. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 469 days ago on 19 June 2023) Seems like people in favor of merge, it has been opened for 25 days without further discussion. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 462 days ago on 26 June 2023) Discussion has died off; while not a formal RfC, it was widely attended and held on a prominent board - I believe a consensus can be determined from it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 457 days ago on 1 July 2023) Discussion seems to have settled, and while it's not an RfC a consensus closure on this source would be helpful going forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 573 days ago on 7 March 2023) - no additional editing has been made post 16 March 2023 and general outcome is users supporting to merge history on both the article and draft version per talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)