Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:22, 3 March 2016

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32	Archive 33
Archive 34	Archive 35	Archive 36
Archive 37	Archive 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

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.

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 15 June 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 an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should 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.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Requests for closure

Requests for comment

MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 3138 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 3139 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 3146 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing of this RFC is past due, and the lack of a close has caused contention in dispute resolution. However, closure by a non-Muslim editor would be likely to result in further contention. Request closure by an uninvolved experienced Muslim editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 3133 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else

It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undone I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed done tag so this will not be automatically archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 3136 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:

1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?

The discussion seems contentious which is why I'm not closing it myself. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 3137 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed not done template so the bot won't prematurely advertise it. I agree with waiting more time before closing it. Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? (Initiated 3113 days ago on 6 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50)#Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50): RfC on lede passage (Initiated 3121 days ago on 29 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super-easy close: Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_179#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles (Initiated 3105 days ago on 14 January 2016)

We actually drafted and !voted on a 5-point consensus (with notes than need not be part of the close), at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can we wrap this up?. While this could be allowed to just expired into the archives, it would be convenient to have a formal close, because the thread, and its derailed sub-thread about clarifying MoS's meaning with regard to formal/encyclopedic language, is holding up re-opening a "clean" discussion on the latter point, unpolluted by "winningest"-related bickering. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC has been archived. It has been marked as closed, but it has not been closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two RFC's need closing

One is snow close Talk:Muhammad#Remove 'founder of islam' reference. The other needs a cool headed admin(preferably knowledgeable in Islam) who is willing to read the entire RFC and is able to deal with the fall out later on. Talk:Muhammad#RFC for opening sentence in the lede. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)/Archive 125#Two edit filter RfCs: Modifying existing filters and enabling the block function

A two part expired RfC, should be a fairly easy close. Sam Walton (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

(Initiated 3077 days ago on 11 February 2016)

We need an experienced editor/admin to look at this RfC. The initial question concerns the way in which Palestine is listed on this page, though the question also has implications for other leaders of unrecognised or partially recognized states, and for leaders of sub-national entities (constituent countries of the Netherlands and so forth). It also impacts on related pages (List of state leaders in 2015, etc...). I should note that a couple of editors have questioned the phrasing of the RfC itself. Appreciate that this is a complex one but a careful eye is needed to suggest how to proceed! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Discussion still ongoing.--Aervanath (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aervanath: The discussion is over and the result is zero consensus for change, per the lack of prior discussion to the Rfc & the misleading and biased nature of the Rfc question.--Neve –selbert 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason to close this RFC would be that it is misleadingly and non-neutrally worded, in which case it can be closed as incapable of producing consensus. Otherwise it can be left open for 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: As of this writing the most recent contribution to the RFC is only 30 seconds old. Convention is to let RFCs run for at least 30 days or as long as it takes to reach consensus, whichever is longer. The discussion is only 11 days old at this point. I skimmed the discussion; while the initial RFC could have been better-worded, my impression is that the majority of contributors are not biased by the wording of the RFC. I don't see anything there to convince me to close it early. There is no rush.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aervanath: The contributors to the survey are simply unaware that they are opposing the status quo, they believe that they are opposing a change to the status quo instead. This is the fundamental flaw & another reason as to why the Rfc should be closed ASAP.--Neve –selbert 20:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: Like I said, in my skimming of the discussion, the contributors seem perfectly aware of the implications of their statements. I see no need to close early, I see no fundamental flaw. Let the RFC run out its normal course, please.--Aervanath (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aervanath: Would the result be binding? This is totally confusing, there are overwhelming flaws with the Rfc. The contributors are supporting keeping the status quo while at the same time supporting changing the status quo and vice versa (whichever way you look at it). Surely, that is a cause for concern.--Neve –selbert 22:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Neve-selbert: The result would be binding if there was consensus for any particular result. That's how consensus works. I (or whatever other admin eventually closes the RfC) will not look at whether people are for or against the "status quo", but will look at what people think the article should look like going forward. If there is a consensus for what the article should look like, then it doesn't matter what the status quo was.--Aervanath (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 3321 days ago on 12 June 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Seeking clarification (Initiated 3120 days ago on 30 December 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Clarification question on the policy, where the opening editor wrote, "Does the WP:BLPSOURCES ban on tabloid journalism mean that no BLP material can be sourced to a Tabloid Journal?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohamed Hadid#Request for comment (Initiated 3108 days ago on 11 January 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC (Initiated 3101 days ago on 18 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: How should we word the lede? (Initiated 3102 days ago on 17 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of oldest living people#RfC: "List of Verified Oldest Living People" as title instead of "List of Oldest Living People" (Initiated 3100 days ago on 19 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Democrat/Independent (Initiated 3098 days ago on 21 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eminem#Should info about deaths of Proof and Dawn Scott be added and if yes, then what in form? (RfC) (Initiated 3097 days ago on 22 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ExxonMobil#RfC: Should the article have a heading about support for climate change denialism? (Initiated 3108 days ago on 11 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RfC: Proposal to fix a long term structural problem in Palestine Israel conflict articles (Initiated 3105 days ago on 14 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Line for Elizabeth II (Initiated 3099 days ago on 20 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms? (Initiated 3110 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone assess the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#RFC_for_multiple_letter_capitalisations_in_the_MoS. There are multiple options and there seems to be mixed opinion on all of them. There is also discussion about the same issue at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_20#Extending_the_.22one-letter_lowercase_prefix.22_rule_to_multiple-letter_prefixes and Talk:TVOS. Thanks, Tom29739 ^[talk] 17:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC). (Initiated 3088 days ago on 31 January 2016)[reply]

Backlogs

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 2015 October 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog is about the same number but only falls back to December now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to 140 but still back to early January. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

This discussion forum has a typical backlog with approximately 40 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 25, 2016. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_11#Category:Historical_subdivisions_of_the_Slovene_ethnic_territory.E2.80.8E

Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279#BLP violations and sockpuppetry by User:Lane99

Will an administrator please assess the consensus at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive279#BLP_violations_and_sockpuppetry_by_User:Lane99, and, if appropriate, implement the ban? This thread was archived without formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

Talk:Trump Entrepreneur Initiative#Requested move 28 February 2016

I'm requesting an early close (and corresponding move) of the move request of Trump Entrepreneur Initiative to Trump University. This is shaping up to be a WP:SNOW discussion and the subject is incredibly hot at the moment, with 99.9% of our traffic coming from our Trump University redirect (compare these). We are in the thick of the Republican primary election season and I'd think we want to confuse as few voters as possible. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 ====[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14#Category:Organizations_by_country_and_subject]]====
 Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
-====[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14#Category:Professional_associations_by_profession]]====
-Please could someone look at this and take the necessary action to close it? Thanks. '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 09:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
-: {{done}} '''[[User:Lugnuts|<font color="002bb8">Lugnuts</font>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Lugnuts|Dick Laurent is dead]]</sup> 07:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 ====[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_15#Regional_writers]]====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards