Fish and karate (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
{{Initiated|05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)|done = yes}} Seems as consensus has been achieved, though neutral closure would be appreciated.[[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 10:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
{{Initiated|05:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)|done = yes}} Seems as consensus has been achieved, though neutral closure would be appreciated.[[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 10:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
:{{done}} [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 10:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
:{{done}} [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 10:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
====[[Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea in lead]]==== |
|||
{{initiated|15 May 2018}} |
|||
Could an uninvolved editor please assess consensus at [[Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea in lead]]? This was meant to be a quick survey to pick one of two versions of a phrase in the lead after some recent edits, but it has evolved into a quasi-RfC that requires a more subtle closure. There is an element of timeliness that weighs against keeping the discussion open for 30 days. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 19:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:00, 22 May 2018
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Billiardball1.png/40px-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 17 May 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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Billiardball2.png/40px-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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Billiardball3.png/40px-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.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line
RfCs
Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC
(Initiated 2262 days ago on 6 April 2018) This one's quite complex (sorry!) and controversial, so probably needs multiple admins to close. I've been keeping track of the raw numbers for the !votes at [1] (which could do with double-checking), but obviously the numbers only tell a part of the story here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since the closure has a potential to be contested, three admins would definitely be a preference.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Working. Note: Polling is closed to enable a consensus to be determined. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Specifying the code of football at first reference in team articles
(Initiated 2257 days ago on 11 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Specifying the code of football at first reference in team articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Revised RfC on altname Bcash
(Initiated 2256 days ago on 13 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Revised RfC on altname Bcash? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Peter Thiel#Peter Thiel philanthropy section
(Initiated 2251 days ago on 17 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Thiel#Peter Thiel philanthropy section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Minarchism#Merge with Night-watchman state
(Initiated 2250 days ago on 18 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Minarchism#Merge with Night-watchman state? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Done - closed yesterday by User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. Fish+Karate 13:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism#RfC: what views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so?
(Initiated 2250 days ago on 19 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism#RfC: what views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line
Deletion discussions
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line
Other types of closing requests
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Behavioural genetics/1
(Initiated 2293 days ago on 7 March 2018)
- I can help with the procedural elements of the close once consensus is determined. AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Syrian Republic (1930–58)#Split
(Initiated 2428 days ago on 23 October 2017) Seems as consensus has been achieved, though neutral closure would be appreciated.GreyShark (dibra) 10:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea in lead
(Initiated 2224 days ago on 15 May 2018) Could an uninvolved editor please assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea in lead? This was meant to be a quick survey to pick one of two versions of a phrase in the lead after some recent edits, but it has evolved into a quasi-RfC that requires a more subtle closure. There is an element of timeliness that weighs against keeping the discussion open for 30 days. — JFG talk 19:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)