Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Ball1.png

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 26 July 2016); 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.

Ball2.png

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.

Billiardball3.png

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.

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

Requests for Comment[edit]

Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?[edit]

Things look okay at the article these days, but this discussion should have a close to help put the previous dispute to bed. Keep in mind that the question is not simply about distinguishing the terms (which is something the article already does); it's about whether we should strictly distinguish them (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC: Allow inclusion of former names in lead section of biographies covering transgender and non-binary people[edit]

Any brave soul want to take a wack at this? It's been open about 6 weeks. I don't think it's urgent, but could use a look over. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: "Sir"[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: "Sir" (Initiated 66 days ago on 20 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox (Initiated 65 days ago on 21 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article (Initiated 58 days ago on 28 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rock[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rock (Initiated 57 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Canvassing concerns were raised at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#Canvassing effort by Bjork138. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings (Initiated 57 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default? (Initiated 62 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Give it some more time. It seems that technical improvements are in the pipeline, which may affect the options available. Deryck C. 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), I've fixed the initiated date from 19 July 2016 to 24 June 2016. I listed it here because it had been archived. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • My apologies. It got archived already... I'm not sure that discussion has a closure action as it is. You can slap an {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} onto it if you feel necessary? Deryck C. 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Marking as not done for the bot for now, because I'm not sure what there is to do. Deryck C. 23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from mode=traditional by default to mode=packed by default. The proposal received much discussion from the community. An RfC close would determine whether the proposal was successful. If it is successful, then the technical change could be implemented, If it not successful, then a close would note that and possibly summarize points of agreement that could help frame future discussions. I've removed the not done tag. I have not closed the discussion myself because I would not be an objective closer for this subject. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Cunard: In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 56 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazerdadog: Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments (Initiated 52 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment (Initiated 41 days ago on 15 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact (Initiated 49 days ago on 7 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues (Initiated 40 days ago on 16 July 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Earthquake prediction#Non-Participation, where a participant expressed a desire for closure: "Is that a possible outcome: no closure at all, or a 'no consensus' close to the RFC, after all this discussion? Sigh... I was at least hoping that a close might decide whether 'natural time' and the VAN prediction of 2008 can be mentioned in the article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles (Initiated 50 days ago on 6 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste? (Initiated 34 days ago on 22 July 2016)? There is an edit war over the outcome of the RfC regarding whether the page is a disambiguation page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles (Initiated 44 days ago on 12 July 2016)? The previous RfC was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion (Initiated 44 days ago on 12 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N (Initiated 52 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother? (Initiated 40 days ago on 16 July 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just here to request this to see that it has already been done. I endorse this request. 89.164.194.127 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias (Initiated 46 days ago on 10 July 2016)? My RfC close of this discussion was contested. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrative closure requested for Cultural Marxism RfC and related Administrative incident[edit]

Request for closure of an RfC regarding the lead of the Cultural Marxism section of the Frankfurt School page (discussion on talk) as well as Administrative Closure of a related Dispute on the Administrative incidents noticeboard. --Jobrot (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar#RFC: Llanito as language or dialect[edit]

Request a none involved admin look at closing this RFC and (if they can) decipher the mess as to what it actually concluded. WCMemail 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion[edit]

This discussion forum has an average backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from July 2016. (04:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions[edit]

There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

There are approximately 50 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from April 25, 2016. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

RevDel amendment[edit]

This proposal for amendment of the RevDel guidelines has been open for more than a month. Currently 100% of !votes are in favor of adopting the amendment with a thorough discussion among a variety of other editors who have chosen not to register any opposition. Despite a low number of !votes, the participation of a large number of editors without registered objection seems to indicate no objection to adoption of the amendment. Could it please be evaluated for closure? LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

There is now a pretty significant backlog building at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Oddly, some of these haven't even been relisted (which means even non-Admins aren't looking at them...), but have been sitting around for 2 weeks or more. Also, oddly, some of the ones that I just looked at are WP:SNOW results, so I'm not sure why they haven't been moved, except that I guess an Admin hasn't looked at them. --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy[edit]

This may be the wrong place for such a post, but there are a huge number of unopposed CFDS nominations dating back to August 6. Pppery (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)