→Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date: don't see anything to close |
TheSandDoctor (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
==== [[Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date]] ==== |
==== [[Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date]] ==== |
||
{{initiated|02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)}} Could an experienced editor please review [[Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date|this discussion]]? --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
{{initiated|02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)|done=yes}} Could an experienced editor please review [[Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date|this discussion]]? --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
:Appears to be POV pushing on these RfCs (multiple RfCs running at the same time, meandering proposals in the RfCs, etc). It would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look. Quite a political topic that both pro-china and pro-hong kong editors I would guess are involved in. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
:Appears to be POV pushing on these RfCs (multiple RfCs running at the same time, meandering proposals in the RfCs, etc). It would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look. Quite a political topic that both pro-china and pro-hong kong editors I would guess are involved in. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
::I don't even saw any rfc tag..... [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) |
::I don't even saw any rfc tag..... [[User:Matthew hk|Matthew hk]] ([[User talk:Matthew hk|talk]]) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
:::::''' Reply '''- {{yo|Matthew hk}}, thank you! --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC) |
:::::''' Reply '''- {{yo|Matthew hk}}, thank you! --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
: I see nothing to close there. There clearly isn't support for renaming the article, but a close wouldn't affect that, you would need a follow-up [[WP:RM]] discussion. Regarding the wider question of when the protest event "ended", there is minimal well-sourced discussion of that topic. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC) |
: I see nothing to close there. There clearly isn't support for renaming the article, but a close wouldn't affect that, you would need a follow-up [[WP:RM]] discussion. Regarding the wider question of when the protest event "ended", there is minimal well-sourced discussion of that topic. [[User:力]] (power~enwiki, [[User talk:力|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/力|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
:{{re|Jax 0677}} I concur that there is nothing here to close. A [[WP:RM]] discussion appears in order. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">The</span><span style="color:#009933; font-weight:bold;">SandDoctor</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:TheSandDoctor|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
|||
==== [[Talk:Ashley_Ellyllon#Orbs_(band)]] ==== |
==== [[Talk:Ashley_Ellyllon#Orbs_(band)]] ==== |
Revision as of 00:06, 4 April 2021
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 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.
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 30 April 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 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 the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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.
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.
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. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}
. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}}
template with |done=yes
. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}
, {{Close}}
, {{Done}}
{{Not done}}
, and {{Resolved}}
.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Germans#Rfc for due weight regarding the ethnic vs. nationality meaning of "Germans"
(Initiated 1272 days ago on 5 December 2020) This Rfc ended a few days ago and followed lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Talk:Germans. Because of the divisiveness of the issue and the polarized (and at times tense) nature of the discussion, the Rfc would probably be best closed by an administrator. --Tserton (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia
(Initiated 1250 days ago on 27 December 2020) Open way longer than necessary, and is pretty short. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score
(Initiated 1231 days ago on 15 January 2021) Requesting admin closure on the discussion to add OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score to Video Game Manual of Style on Reception sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discographies#RfC:_Possible_alternative_to_current_singles_discography_tables
(Initiated 1224 days ago on 22 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Philosophy_Tube#RFC: Gender transition and MOS:DEADNAME
(Initiated 1215 days ago on 31 January 2021) This controversial BLP RFC needs an uninvolved close. Discussion has long since stopped. ~Gwennie🐈⦅💬 📋⦆ 01:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- But be aware that after a very long series of RfCs and deeply discussed drafts (which overlapped this Philosophy Tube discussion), MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME have been heavily revised, and merged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Palestinian_enclaves#"Bantustans" analogy in the lead
(Initiated 1200 days ago on 15 February 2021) nableezy - 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 20 February 2021)- This RFC has been running for over a month, and since this RFC would have major effects if it passed, it would probably be a good idea for a very experienced uninvolved editor to close this one.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Uyghurs#RfC on the genetic history of the Uyghur people
(Initiated 1192 days ago on 23 February 2021) It is possible that this one doesn't need formal closure, but I'd rather that an uninvolved editor close it due to the potential for continual reverts. Hzh (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Litre abbreviation RFC
(Initiated 1190 days ago on 25 February 2021) Heart (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have made the close, though I would welcome some feedback before this section is archived. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Tropical Storm_Amanda–Cristobal#Amanda/Cristobal Split
(Initiated 1188 days ago on 26 February 2021) – This discussion has been running for nearly a month now, and we are still not any closer to coming to a consensus. The discussion also appears to have died out a week ago, as there has been no further input since then. It looks like the discussion has stalled out at no consensus. Can an admin please close this one? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Oshwah, KrakatoaKatie, and Favonian: Can someone please close off this discussion? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Proud Boys#RFC - White Nationalist
(Initiated 1186 days ago on 28 February 2021) Consensus is not eminently clear, so an uninvolved closure would be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Conservative_Political_Action_Conference#RfC CPAC stage Odal shape
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 2 March 2021) Requesting a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. Despite the canvassing template, I saw no indication of canvassing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Demographics of Eritrea#RfC on UN DESA 2019 Eritrea population estimate
(Initiated 1181 days ago on 5 March 2021) This RfC has been running for just under three weeks, with a modest number of participants. It would be good if an uninvolved editor could consider closing it. Boud (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jewish Chronicle
(Initiated 1173 days ago on 13 March 2021) - Discussion has concluded (I've just restored it from the archive) but would benefit from formal closure and, possibly, a listing at WP:RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#People's birthdate, conflicting (reliable) sources, and WP:SYNTHESIS
(Initiated 1171 days ago on 15 March 2021) - Requesting review and closure by an uninvolved experienced editor or administrator. If this discussion is archived at that time, please restore from archive and then close. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 20 | 29 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 33 | 37 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 14 |
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 February 8
(Initiated 1425 days ago on 4 July 2020) (oldest) – These discussions are ready for closure and/or additional comments (non-admin assistance is welcomed). Many have been open for months and I've either already commented or re-listed. Thanks, FASTILY 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 2#Birth name again
(Initiated 1743 days ago on 22 August 2019) (even earlier, considering the original round of discussion; poll per se opened 30 January 2021; and continuing to present in a forked thread). This discussion, technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag, has languished about a year and and half, with considerable controversy (especially Jan.–Mar. of this year), but has now archived without resolution. It has since spawned a rehash thread at Talk:Sophie (musician)#Birth name yet again, but this is clearly not going to produce the kind of clear poll the last discussion did. This needs assessment and closure, or it's just never going to end. The key issue is that some parties have latched onto the following from WP:BDP as an excuse to suppress the birth name of a dead person:
The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.
It seems dubious that these conditions are met in this case (and "can" certainly does not mean "must"), though that's up to the closure assessor, I guess. Importantly, we just recently had a very lengthy series of RfCs at WT:MOSBIO (still visible atop that page) which resulted in major revisions to MOS:DEADNAME, and the relevant portions have tightened, not loosened, in this regard; i.e., they are taken to apply strictly to living persons, not to dead ones, including recently deceased ones. These changes overlapped the un-RfC at this article, and despite the lack of a clear closure of that un-RfC, the name has continued to be suppressed in this article, without a clear consensus or WP:P&G basis to do so.
Given that the archived discussion has WP:TALKFORKed / WP:MULTIed a new thread, I think it would be wise to un-archive this one and then close it, and leave it to be re-archived automatically over time, and also mark the other thread closed as a redundant and moot discussion fork.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:KOI-4878.01#Proposed merger
(Initiated 1337 days ago on 1 October 2020)
- The debate is taking place in two separate talkpages, and an editor has closed the debate in one of them perhaps without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.
- The debate is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal (closed)
- @Trurle @Figuerai @Astronomyeditionwiki @Kepler-1229b and me (5 editors) are in favor of keeping it as it is now, and SevenSpheresCelestia, Lithopsian, Ardenau4, Headbomb, and Davidbuddy9 (5 editors) are in favor of merging it.
- Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.
- After several months of debate, I would appreciate if an administrator properly closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01, and removes the 'merge' notice from the page.
- Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ExoEditor: Traditionally, any competent, experienced editor in good standing may make a closure so long as they are technically capable of implementing it. Is there a reason you ask for an administrator specifically? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 174#Move good/featured article topicons next to article name
(Initiated 1331 days ago on 6 October 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this usability-related discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see consensus in that discussion, I don't see a "test" that is feasible without WMF involvement, and/but I'm not willing to close a discussion that has been archived for 4 months. I suggest this be closed with no action. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Article size split
(Initiated 1249 days ago on 27 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date
(Initiated 1249 days ago on 28 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Appears to be POV pushing on these RfCs (multiple RfCs running at the same time, meandering proposals in the RfCs, etc). It would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look. Quite a political topic that both pro-china and pro-hong kong editors I would guess are involved in. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't even saw any rfc tag..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's probably why it's under "Other types of closing requests" and not under "Requests for comment". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it not a Rfc. Don't claim it as one. Since it did not even tagged as a Rfc, then people running a lot of Rfc to running out the commenting quota from those editors with RfC quota, does not affect this thread : Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date . Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - @Matthew hk:, thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it not a Rfc. Don't claim it as one. Since it did not even tagged as a Rfc, then people running a lot of Rfc to running out the commenting quota from those editors with RfC quota, does not affect this thread : Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date . Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's probably why it's under "Other types of closing requests" and not under "Requests for comment". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't even saw any rfc tag..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see nothing to close there. There clearly isn't support for renaming the article, but a close wouldn't affect that, you would need a follow-up WP:RM discussion. Regarding the wider question of when the protest event "ended", there is minimal well-sourced discussion of that topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I concur that there is nothing here to close. A WP:RM discussion appears in order. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Ashley_Ellyllon#Orbs_(band)
(Initiated 1247 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? Asleep Next to Science was recently reviewed at AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 177#Convert all English variant notices to editnotices
(Initiated 1235 days ago on 10 January 2021) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- As a quick note, the way I read the discussion (with the heavy disclaimer that I am the proposer) is that there were some consensuses (or at least communal sentiments) reached that went beyond the specific original proposal. I would appreciate it if the closer could assess with an eye toward how this discussion should guide future efforts at reforming English variant notices, rather than just giving a straight adopted/not adopted result. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Generally agree with Sdkb on that. At this point, the proposal (technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag) has archived without closure, and this is not good, since the issue is going to continue to result in squabbling if not settled. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Template talk:Coup d'état#Post discussion comment
(Initiated 1228 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could use a closing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Forgotten Realms Wiki acceptable?
(Initiated 1226 days ago on 19 January 2021) Could an uninvolved editor please review this external link discussion, which includes two older discussions here and here? Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea
(Initiated 1214 days ago on 31 January 2021) Discussion on reducing the content in a subsection of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pending-changes protection of Today's featured article
(Initiated 1212 days ago on 2 February 2021) Could an uninvolved editor please assess whether consensus exists at this village pump discussion? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald_Trump#Overturn_consensus_#40_on_exercise.
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 5 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald_Trump#Citations
(Initiated 1207 days ago on 8 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald_Trump#“McConnells_comments_are_undue_weight”
(Initiated 1199 days ago on 15 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald_Trump#Health_per_Harold_Bornstein
(Initiated 1198 days ago on 16 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Requested_move_17_March_2021
(Initiated 1169 days ago on 17 March 2021) Could an admin please close this move discussion? Thank you, Some1 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)