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, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

Billiardball1.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 16 November 2017); 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.

Billiardball2.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]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line[edit]

RfCs[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata (Initiated 81 days ago on 26 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS (Initiated 82 days ago on 25 September 2017). I agree with George Ho at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 24#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS that a close would be useful to summarize how the community views WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: San Bernardino attack[edit]

Expired RfC. Special attention may be needed on the issue of "sourced/verifiable" vs. "significant part of reliable source coverage". (Initiated 61 days ago on 16 October 2017)Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi#Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi#Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead? (Initiated 63 days ago on 14 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#RfC: Elizabeth Bonifacia's alternative names[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#RfC: Elizabeth Bonifacia's alternative names (Initiated 60 days ago on 17 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Marriage#Death[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Marriage#Death (Initiated 59 days ago on 17 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please access and close. --RAN (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Polanski#Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roman Polanski#Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017 (Initiated 58 days ago on 19 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead (Initiated 67 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Jianianhualong#(Long-belated) Rfc for level of anatomical detail in dinosaur articles[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jianianhualong#(Long-belated) Rfc for level of anatomical detail in dinosaur articles (Initiated 67 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 196#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 196#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context (Initiated 56 days ago on 21 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Hore#RfC on "criminal" description[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Hore#RfC on "criminal" description (Initiated 67 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Danica Roem#RFC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Danica Roem#RFC (Initiated 34 days ago on 12 November 2017)? Thanks, MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not appear to me a consensus will be reached, which is disappointing. It would be better to have an outsider make the call. -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War#RfC #2 Israeli alleged role[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 November 2017), with 12 users voting and discussing; the last comment was made on November 12th. Request closure from a neutral administrator.GreyShark (dibra) 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Note - another comment was added in the discussion on November 27th.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates (Initiated 55 days ago on 22 October 2017) Many Thanks...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: Minimum criteria for a Station[edit]

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 October 2017) Legobot has removed the RfC template. Jc86035 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Summarising the crux will be difficult and IMO, a read through each and evry argument will be much better for interested parties in future.Winged Blades Godric 14:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC about linking in quotations[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 October 2017) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC about linking in quotations? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro[edit]

(Initiated 46 days ago on 31 October 2017) Voting took place, remains to assess consensus and close. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Catalan Republic (2017)#Infobox[edit]

An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 47 days ago on 30 October 2017) George Ho (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Disk storage#RfC on "data are" or "data is"[edit]

Can an uninvolved editor please close this discussion. Thanks. (Initiated 50 days ago on 27 October 2017) --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Julie Payette#RfC on subject's title[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julie Payette#RfC on subject's title (Initiated 55 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro (Initiated 46 days ago on 31 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Limes#Rfc regarding Limes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Limes#Rfc regarding Limes (Initiated 56 days ago on 21 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates (Initiated 55 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Victims list[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Victims list (Initiated 61 days ago on 16 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#RfC on shooting description in lede[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#RfC on shooting description in lede (Initiated 49 days ago on 28 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Rfc: What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Rfc: What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence? (Initiated 41 days ago on 5 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling (Initiated 47 days ago on 30 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC Genocides[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkey#RfC Genocides (Initiated 45 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Metric#Primary topic[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metric#Primary topic (Initiated 50 days ago on 27 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox element#RfC regarding use of Respell key for the names of elements[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox element#RfC regarding use of Respell key for the names of elements (Initiated 55 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Julian day#Request For Comment on presentation of algorithms[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian day#Request For Comment on presentation of algorithms (Initiated 45 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:New Israel Fund#Request for comment[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Israel Fund#Request for comment (Initiated 53 days ago on 24 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#RfC about use of unverified[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#RfC about use of unverified (Initiated 46 days ago on 31 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos#RfC: Should the article include text/sources analyzing Yiannopoulos's statements on pedophilia?[edit]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 9 November 2017) Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Emily Beecham#Request for comment[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 12 November 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emily Beecham#Request for comment and close the RFC please ? (FWIW I think consensus in the discussion is obvious however as I've !voted and have made my objections in the past I'd rather someone not related to the discussion closes it), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Danica_Roem#RFC[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 12 November 2017) This discussion, with WP:BLP implications, has stalled with very unclear consensus; !votes are about evenly split. Administrative assistance would be appreciated. Original question has moderately biased wording, but still spurred extensive discussion on the core issue, and the core issue is one that's important to the article. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Retracted; didn't realize it had already been requested here earlier in the process. Not sure what template to use here so the bot cleans it up, sorry. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Recent years#RFC: Do we need to differentiate between "recent years" and other years?[edit]

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 October 2017) Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess consensus and close this debate? — JFG talk 12:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Alex Jones (radio host)#RfC regarding description of Infowars.com[edit]

(Initiated 24 days ago on 22 November 2017) This has been going on for weeks, with an overwhelming consensus and a very small number of editors opposing the consensus continuing to beat the horse. It needs to be shut down. I'd have closed it myself except I !voted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph[edit]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 November 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC here and close this debate. tahc chat 21:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables.[edit]

(Initiated 64 days ago on 13 October 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables. Thanks, Tvx1 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Carleton Knights football[edit]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 November 2017) Should the following archival documentary be included as an external link at Carleton Knights football? "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnnlaxer (talkcontribs) 15:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Wikipedia and the Dec. 12th “Break The Internet” day of action for net neutrality[edit]

(Initiated 8 days ago on 7 December 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Wikipedia and the Dec. 12th “Break The Internet” day of action for net neutrality? The proposal itself is moot at this point (and as such the discussion no longer needs to be open) but it would still be nice to get some closure on this in case something like this happens in the future. SkyWarrior 18:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)