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 23 January 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.

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]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles (Initiated 54 days ago on 30 December 2016) (using the date from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner due to the close relationship between the two discussions)? Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus of this RfC? (Initiated 87 days ago on 27 November 2016) Mz7 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's a big one, which looks like consensus to me but I'm WP:INVOLVED. Would some kind soul go through the closing motions? (Initiated 96 days ago on 18 November 2016)JFG talk 23:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Combined two close requests. Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Noting that the subthread regarding sanctions proposed against Petergstrom has been open for over a week now. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

RfCs[edit]

Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger#RfC about the relevance of several aspects mentioned in the article about this crime (Initiated 71 days ago on 13 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: Closed as no consensus for inclusion of proposed points. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Andy Murray#Request for Comment British tennis player or Scottish tennis player (Initiated 70 days ago on 14 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 66 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Listing after a request on my talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: closed with consensus that "murder" is not necessarily a violation of NPOV (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Grace VanderWaal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus? (Initiated 40 days ago on 13 January 2017) --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now archived at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Grace VanderWaal. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done: closed with partial consensus (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey#RfC: Is use of murder in the text, or use of murder categories, within the article against the WP:NPOV policy? (Initiated 66 days ago on 18 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Eggishorn, as this was also requested two sections above. Pppery 19:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2#Infobox image RfC[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carrie Fisher/Archive 2#Infobox image RfC (Initiated 57 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Albert Cashier#RFC: Gender[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Albert Cashier#RFC: Gender (Initiated 56 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RFC on placement of Crown Heights Riots (Initiated 62 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Saudi Arabia#RFC: Birthplace of Islam and Arabs (Initiated 56 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template (Initiated 56 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 63#RfC on the use of two film lists as sources (Initiated 62 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Observatory for Human Rights#RfC about adding "pro-opposition" or "anti-Assad" to first sentence in the lead (Initiated 64 days ago on 20 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Radha Madhav Dham#RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article? (Initiated 67 days ago on 17 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Christmas#RFC - Date formats[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Christmas#RFC - Date formats (Initiated 56 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes (Initiated 54 days ago on 30 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#RfC on "Cast and character" formatting[edit]

The RfC (Initiated 50 days ago on 3 January 2017) was ended by Legobot after the normal thirty days: consensus on the primary issue had been achieved well before that; but there is still disagreement upon the scope of the RfC - does the outcome apply only to the Star Trek: Discovery article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that this discussion has been moved to this section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability[edit]

This (Initiated 45 days ago on 8 January 2017) needs closure from uninvolved editor. --George Ho (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War[edit]

Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? (Initiated 45 days ago on 7 January 2017) Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories[edit]

(Initiated 46 days ago on 6 January 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tinderbox (Siouxsie and the Banshees album)#Request for comment 2017[edit]

Would an uninvoled and experienced editor kindly assess the consensus here. (Initiated 45 days ago on 8 January 2017) Apologies in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Would an uninvolved and experienced editor assess the consensus ? Thanks, --Carliertwo (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC on Earthquake prediction[edit]

Experienced and uninvolved editor requested to evaluate this RfC (Initiated 45 days ago on 7 January 2017). Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)#RfC: Assassin or not?[edit]

This RfC (Initiated 50 days ago on 3 January 2017) finished after 30 days of discussion, and I have now closed it to prevent the discussion from overrunning. This was merely a housekeeping closure; I have not determined a result, so I would like an administrator to override my closure with a result. Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Casey Affleck#RfC about details in Early Life section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Casey Affleck#RfC about details in Early Life section (Initiated 50 days ago on 3 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music#Images (Initiated 48 days ago on 5 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award (Initiated 47 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award ? Thanks, --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section (Initiated 47 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years (Initiated 40 days ago on 13 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter (Initiated 45 days ago on 8 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy (Initiated 57 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fake news website#RfC: merges of related pages[edit]

A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. (Initiated 28 days ago on 25 January 2017) 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge[edit]

This RFC (Initiated 18 days ago on 4 February 2017) has run 2 weeks and is pretty quiet now. Needs a close. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#RFC on including Russian influence into the election[edit]

This RFC (Initiated 38 days ago on 15 January 2017) needs a close. Thank youCasprings (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to submit blockers on replacing our wikitext editor[edit]

The uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus. (Initiated 36 days ago on 16 January 2017) George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13[edit]

This discussion (Initiated 32 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Should the AfC process be scrapped altogether (while retaining the draft namespace)?[edit]

This discussion (Initiated 31 days ago on 22 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Government of the Republic of China#RfC about government infobox[edit]

This discussion (Initiated 21 days ago on 1 February 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Request for comment: Use of interlanguage links in Wikipedia templates[edit]

This discussion (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions[edit]

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

The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  • The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
      I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.
      Any thoughts on that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob13Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        • @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
          •  :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
            • Marcocapelle, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. Schwede66 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Beheading in Islam#Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2[edit]

Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel#Split[edit]

Discussion on splitting List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - initiated in 2014 with last comments added in early 2016. In my opinion there is a consensus to split, but since i initiated the discussion - i would like an external objective closure of the RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog[edit]

Nearly 30 backlog and elapsed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)