Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 38. (BOT) |
|||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
=== [[Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede]] === |
=== [[Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede]] === |
||
{{initiated|05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)}} Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
{{initiated|05:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)}} Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
=== [[Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?]] === |
|||
{{Initiated|17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)}} RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. [[User:Vanezi Astghik|Vanezi]] ([[User talk:Vanezi Astghik|talk]]) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading === |
=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading === |
Revision as of 09:41, 9 June 2024
![]() | 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. |
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. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
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
(Initiated 108 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 162 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 143 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 140 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 139 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 139 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 136 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 126 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 123 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 115 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 114 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 109 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 189 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 44 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 80 | 85 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 145 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 144 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 140 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 140 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 140 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 139 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 139 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 138 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 138 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 135 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 134 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 133 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 132 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 129 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 129 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 123 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 122 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 121 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 121 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 120 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 119 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 111 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia
(Initiated 108 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 159 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 131 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 115 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 83 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)