Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,345,116 edits
Line 182: Line 182:
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother]]? {{Initiated|16 July 2016}} '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at [[Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother]]? {{Initiated|16 July 2016}} '''[[User:Vanjagenije|<font color="008B8B">Vanjagenije</font>]] [[User talk:Vanjagenije|<font color="F4A460">(talk)</font>]]''' 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. [[Special:Contributions/89.164.194.127|89.164.194.127]] ([[User talk:89.164.194.127|talk]]) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
:I was just here to request this to see that it has already been done. I endorse this request. [[Special:Contributions/89.164.194.127|89.164.194.127]] ([[User talk: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]]====
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|10 July 2016}}? My RfC close of this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cunard&oldid=734602640#Your_.22closing.22_of_what.3F_thomas_w.27s_quasi_rfc_on_assault_rifle_page 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, [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


===Deletion discussions===
===Deletion discussions===

Revision as of 06:34, 16 August 2016

    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 22 September 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

    See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Requests for Comment

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

    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)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?

    The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. I'm asking for 3 closers, until we get 3 or until a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3072 days ago on 25 May 2016). Dank, your request for multiple closers sounds weird (how are they going to coordinate, if the point is precisely that they are relatively independent from each other?) but well, whatever works. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan and Dank: The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, it seems reasonable to me but I just asked about the "how". I live and learn. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As no one else came forward to form a committee, I've {{close}} this myself. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I have reopened it. Thanks for trying but this was contentious and there was significant opinion that it is best left for an admin (or a team as suggested above). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I can try to close this if wanted, but the reason I skipped over it my first time through this page is that I've stated in several places that my understanding of the current (prior to whatever this discussion's result is) consensus is that nac cannot close discussions as delete due to not being able to implement a delete close. I believe I've been in at least one discussion where I supported that status quo. I'm not "involved" in this discussion, and I don't think I would be biased in the close, but I wanted to express that disclaimer first before offering to close this. Please feel free to let me know what you think. If you'd like my help, I'm happy to, if you'd prefer not, I'm fine with that too : ) - jc37 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - While this is all still true, still, I think I'll recuse myself in this case. - jc37 01:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    My two cents is that the idea of a 3-person jury for closing very important and/or difficult discussions is a good idea. I've done it myself and it worked. Rather than any discussion or coordination being needed, you pick three people at random (one of them can be yourself I guess), contact them to see if they will do it, set a 24-hour or so window, and each "votes" their decision with a couple paragraphs or whatever showing their reasoning. Then as soon as all three have voted their decision you just total the votes, its 2-1 or 3-0, and you make the actual close which is just the technical counting of the votes of the three closers.
    I would say it would be better to set this up ahead of time though. But it could still be done now, right now, and its good to do new things especially if they're sensible and have been shown to be workable, and fortune favors the brave. Go for it. (I'm not saying the committee/discussion way isn't also a good way maybe.) (Also for a question like this it would be a very good idea IMO to include at least one non-admin on the "jury", for both good procedural and political reasons.)Herostratus (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that I'm willing to close almost any discussion that I'm not involved in (I'm involved in this one) as part of one of these committees. Anyone can ping me on my talk page to ask me to participate. Perhaps we should have a sign-up page somewhere to randomly select from? Tazerdadog (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It just occurs to me to point out that we have three people here - User:Jc37, User:Herostratus, and User:Tazerdadog - who would apparently be willing to constitute a jury. So these three people (one admin and two non-admins) could go ahead and do that. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not me, I voted. Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, and Tazerdadog said the same actually - I misread you both. So ignore what I just said please. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: FWIW I'm willing to take part in a 3-person jury as an uninvolved non-admin. I'm an active page mover and have a reasonable reputation for working towards consensus in the frame of policy. I've had the opportunity to adjudicate contentious situations before, including digesting walls of text and giving due weight to succinct as well as verbose arguments, and I came to defend my own rationales for closing such debates in a way that obviously couldn't please everyone but was deemed fair. Ping me if/when the process gets going. — JFG talk 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK well I don't know... as far as I'm concerned you'd be hired. I consider myself fair minded and there's no real reason why I couldn't "hire" two more closers, and then close (but not decide) the discussion with {{Archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}, then as soon as all three closers have made their decision (or even when two have, if they've decided the same way) do the actual close just based on their decision.
    However, all this is going to seem new and odd enough without having someone who's voted being involved in any way shape or form. People will talk. So c'mon, let's have some uninvolved admin step forward here and "hire" JFG and two other people and do as I've outlined. For that person there won'd be much hard work. How to "hire" the 3 closers is up to them... I an envisioning generating some random numbers and applying to the lists of editors or admins, or just closing your eyes and pointing, or something like that... or maybe two more stalwarts will apply as JFG here did... let's do it! I'm sorry I feel I have to disqualify myself from the entire process, purely for the politics of the optics. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Surprised this is still open. Am happy to volunteer as a closer of this debate, alongside anyone else who wants to take part. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Poking people on this - this needs to be closed. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pinging me, I was not aware this was listed here. If an admin or a committee or Jimbo or whatever want to review my close, I don't object. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: "Sir" (Initiated 3046 days ago on 20 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox (Initiated 3045 days ago on 21 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article (Initiated 3038 days ago on 28 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 3037 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)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings (Initiated 3037 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default? (Initiated 3042 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 3036 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @Cunard and Tazerdadog: Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump#RFC: Should location of transition office be provided in "location" section of infobox?

    Can an editor or admin assess this RfC for a WP:SNOW close? LavaBaron (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, kindly, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Isaidnoway challenged it on the grounds that it's been less than 24 hours. I didn't check how long the RfC had been open when I closed it, but since Isaidnoway asked, I think I should leave it open for at least a few days before trying to close it again. To be honest, I don't think a cross-posted RfC was the right format for this discussion... Deryck C. 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, seems reasonable. Thanks, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments (Initiated 3032 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment (Initiated 3021 days ago on 15 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rolfing#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact (Initiated 3029 days ago on 7 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues (Initiated 3020 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)[reply]

    Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles (Initiated 3030 days ago on 6 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)#RfC on White savior narrative in film wikilink (Initiated 3028 days ago on 8 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:White savior narrative in film#Inclusion of The Matrix

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:White savior narrative in film#Inclusion of The Matrix (Initiated 3023 days ago on 13 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy#RfC on inclusion of meeting between AG and Bill Clinton

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy#RfC on inclusion of meeting between AG and Bill Clinton (Initiated 3032 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste?

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste? (Initiated 3014 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)[reply]

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

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles (Initiated 3024 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)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion (Initiated 3024 days ago on 12 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 3032 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Novak_Djokovic#RfC_Novak.27s_mother? (Initiated 3020 days ago on 16 July 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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 3026 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)[reply]

    Deletion discussions

    Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion

    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

    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)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

    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)[reply]

    Other discussions

    Deletion review

    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 2 is still open and the regular DRV closers have all participated. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requested moves

    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 (contribs • talk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Amendment request of DYK participation restrictions

    Wikipedia talk:Did you know#LavaBaron's restrictions - review has been running for a week and new comments have petered out. It requires an uninvolved editor's pair of eyes to close the discussion and announce the outcome. Deryck C. 15:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=734713642"