Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37. (BOT) |
|||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
:Note that this has been archived to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again)]]. '''[[User:VickKiang|<span style="color:blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">VickKiang</span>]]''' [[User talk:VickKiang|<span style="color:light blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">(talk)</span>]] 05:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
:Note that this has been archived to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again)]]. '''[[User:VickKiang|<span style="color:blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">VickKiang</span>]]''' [[User talk:VickKiang|<span style="color:light blue; padlue 2px 2px 2px;">(talk)</span>]] 05:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) |
||
===[[Talk:Uyghur genocide#Requested move 20 September 2023]]=== |
|||
{{Initiated|14:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)|type=rm}} |
|||
Requested move that's been open for a few weeks. No new participants in several days. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 15:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Proposal_2_Expanding_Vital_Articles]]=== |
===[[Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Proposal_2_Expanding_Vital_Articles]]=== |
||
Revision as of 15:31, 10 October 2023
|
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. |
The Closure requests 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 appears 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.
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 14 July 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.
A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.
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
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 372 days ago on 6 August 2023) The discussion came to a natural end, but as the issue is contentious we'd benefit from someone uninvolved assessing the consensus. Tercer (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 352 days ago on 27 August 2023) Needs formal close, proposing policy, discussion seems to have cooled off. —siroχo 07:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 349 days ago on 29 August 2023) RfC tag expired and is ready to formally close (required as it proposes a change to a guideline). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 328 days ago on 20 September 2023) Could we have a close please as this seems to died down now. Things to consider: Right now we have many sports related articles with a standardized leading capital after the ndash for at least a decade. MOS has no specific clause on how we would render this. The closer needs to address whether there is consensus to keep/curtail that method and whether there is consensus to add or not add a specific clause to MOS. I hope that sums it up. Experienced editor please on this contentious issue. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2023 (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 | 2 | 24 | 26 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 54 | 24 | 78 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
(Initiated 370 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 370 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 363 days ago on 15 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 356 days ago on 22 August 2023) Duckmather (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted (pointlessly IMO) to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21#👨💻 * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted again to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30#👨💻. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- And that is the story of RfD... J947 † edits 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 353 days ago on 26 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 348 days ago on 30 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 858 days ago on 8 April 2022) Discussion is very old, seems to be ready for closure by an uninvolved editor. HappyWith (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 367 days ago on 11 August 2023) Please also advise whether editors should start a follow-up RfC on whether to deprecate minor edits entirely. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bumping. It would be appreciated if someone could close this ASAP, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 333 days ago on 15 September 2023) We've had quite a bit of discussion on this, could an uninvolved editor close it? Thank you. starship.paint (RUN) 12:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note that this has been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again). VickKiang (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 327 days ago on 20 September 2023) Requested move that's been open for a few weeks. No new participants in several days. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 326 days ago on 22 September 2023) This discussion is a bit confusing. The bolded count is 6 support and 5 oppose, but one oppose could be read as neutral and there are 3 unbolded discussants two of which point to September 17 bolded votes in a prior discussion as their current unamended opinion in support. A third unbolded is an oppose. Potentially a count of opinions could be viewed as 8 to 5 with a neutral. I am thus not sure whether it is no consensus or a consensus. There has only been one new discussant in the last 5 days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)