Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) →Other types of closing requests: chronological order |
Paine Ellsworth (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
==== [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February#1948 Palestinian exodus]] ==== |
==== [[Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February#1948 Palestinian exodus]] ==== |
||
{{initiated|17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)}} It's a move review that should be speedily closed. We had a pretty contentious move request a few months ago at [[Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus]] (a... reasonably contentious article), closed by [[User:Sceptre]] as "no consensus". Then we just had another move request of that same page, which was closed ''again'' by [[User:Sceptre]]. That's......... not how requested moves are done. You're not allowed to close the same debate twice. [[WP:RMCI]] is explicit that involved editors cannot close debates, and it's explicit for a reason. The closer has simply dismissed both our procedures and practices out of hand. [[WP:MRV]] is so far unanimous against the closer, but move review debates can take upwards of a month, and this close is so outrageous that it really ought to be overturned immediately to send a message that you simply cannot do this. [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]] 06:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
{{initiated|17:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)|done=yes}} It's a move review that should be speedily closed. We had a pretty contentious move request a few months ago at [[Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus]] (a... reasonably contentious article), closed by [[User:Sceptre]] as "no consensus". Then we just had another move request of that same page, which was closed ''again'' by [[User:Sceptre]]. That's......... not how requested moves are done. You're not allowed to close the same debate twice. [[WP:RMCI]] is explicit that involved editors cannot close debates, and it's explicit for a reason. The closer has simply dismissed both our procedures and practices out of hand. [[WP:MRV]] is so far unanimous against the closer, but move review debates can take upwards of a month, and this close is so outrageous that it really ought to be overturned immediately to send a message that you simply cannot do this. [[User:Red Slash|<span style="color:#FF4131;">Red</span>]] [[User talk:Red Slash|<b><span style="color:#460121;">Slash</span></b>]] 06:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
:{{not done}}. Another endorsement of the RM closure and moratorium has been entered, so this move review should stay open for at least the usual seven days. Feel free to request closure again after that standard period. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''' , [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'er there</sup>]] <small>17:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)</small> |
|||
==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
Revision as of 17:46, 15 February 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 25 April 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}}
.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC about exceptions to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and commanders/leaders in Template:Infobox military conflict
(Initiated 536 days ago on 5 December 2022)
Close requested from an uninvolved editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)- After looking at the discussion, I remembered that I have commented a year ago on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with respect to an RfC on including material support to Ukraine in the infobox. I won't be closing this discussion in light of that, as I could be seen as being WP:INVOLVED given that this infobox discussion is related to that article. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- After looking at the discussion, I remembered that I have commented a year ago on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with respect to an RfC on including material support to Ukraine in the infobox. I won't be closing this discussion in light of that, as I could be seen as being WP:INVOLVED given that this infobox discussion is related to that article. Chess (talk) (please use
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Non-free images in search results (redux)
(Initiated 496 days ago on 14 January 2023) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this RfC? Note: Given criticism of the close of a prior round of discussion, it is especially important that the closer here not be involved with respect to the topic area. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk:2022#RFC on the inclusion of Barbara Walters in Deaths (Result:)
(Initiated 495 days ago on 15 January 2023) A consensus seems to have developed; most recent "votes" were cast on Feb. 3rd, and discussion seems to have died down. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- IMO, since this not a straight up WP:SNOW, we should wait till the RfC tag expires before a close done. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like this discussion is about to make the discussion irrelvant. Nemov (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022
(Initiated 491 days ago on 19 January 2023) This is quite possibly the largest RFC in the history of Wikipedia. While I note that a full 30 days has not yet run its course, the !votes have started to slow, and discussion has centered upon the WMF response. It may take some time to put together a panel of uninvolved editors to close this, or for a single editor to weigh everything with due diligence, so I'm making this request to get that ball rolling, as I don't think it wise to leave this open much past 30 days. To whoever takes up the mantle of closing this, I applaud your courage! schetm (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
It may take some time to put together a panel of uninvolved editors to close this, so I'm making this request to get that ball rolling, as I don't think it wise to leave this open much past 30 days.
I don't think a panel is required. BilledMammal (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)- Note: Before any editor(s) commits to closing this discussion, please be aware that this RfC has had more than 600 participants and over 500 !votes, so its outcome will be intensely scrutinized. Please also make sure you have the time and ability to read through the entire RfC in full, and recuse from closing if you participated in the RfC. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC#(OPEN) Final_Selection (Phase 3)
(Initiated 482 days ago on 28 January 2023) Almost open for 3 weeks now and discussion has slowed to a trickle. No new comments since February 9 and most around that date were related to when the said discussion would be closed. Given the contentious nature of the topic at hand, requesting closure here (please see the phase 3 section for the three relevant discussions). NoahTalk 13:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk:2019 Balakot airstrike#Infobox result, 26 February
(Initiated 481 days ago on 29 January 2023) The consensus seems to be clear, so it needs to be closed 2400:ADC1:477:8500:78A6:EC02:832:46C8 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this would be a WP:SNOW close. I'd wait for the 30 day mark to be met, then close it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles
(Initiated 471 days ago on 8 February 2023) A consensus is very clear, and this is a very minor change --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:35, 11 February 2023 (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 | 11 | 64 | 75 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 26 | 31 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Algebra I
(Initiated 506 days ago on 4 January 2023) – The RFD discussion on Algebra 1, Algebra 2, etc. is over a month old, and we are still unable to reach consensus. The main disagreement seems to be between deleting Algebra 3 and deleting all of the redirects. There seems to be a consensus to delete Algebra 3, but not to delete all of the redirects. Mast303 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:The Wire (India)/Archive 1#Merger proposal
(Initiated 572 days ago on 30 October 2022). New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Proposed merge of Russian occupation of Luhansk Oblast into Luhansk People's Republic
(Initiated 544 days ago on 27 November 2022) New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. HappyWith (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Endemic COVID-19#Proposed merge
(Initiated 539 days ago on 2 December 2022) Last !vote was 27 days ago, and later discussion among involved editors indicates a lack of ability to develop consensus without formal closure from an uninvolved party. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd add this is probably not suitable for a non-admin close (WP:BADNAC). Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 102#Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces
(Initiated 520 days ago on 21 December 2022) Please review this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#LP_track_listing_numberings
(Initiated 502 days ago on 8 January 2023) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Proposed_change_to_Template:WikiProject_Albums
(Initiated 497 days ago on 13 January 2023) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677 Done, consensus was to remove importance indicator from template. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2023 February#1948 Palestinian exodus
(Initiated 466 days ago on 13 February 2023) It's a move review that should be speedily closed. We had a pretty contentious move request a few months ago at Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus (a... reasonably contentious article), closed by User:Sceptre as "no consensus". Then we just had another move request of that same page, which was closed again by User:Sceptre. That's......... not how requested moves are done. You're not allowed to close the same debate twice. WP:RMCI is explicit that involved editors cannot close debates, and it's explicit for a reason. The closer has simply dismissed both our procedures and practices out of hand. WP:MRV is so far unanimous against the closer, but move review debates can take upwards of a month, and this close is so outrageous that it really ought to be overturned immediately to send a message that you simply cannot do this. Red Slash 06:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- Not done. Another endorsement of the RM closure and moratorium has been entered, so this move review should stay open for at least the usual seven days. Feel free to request closure again after that standard period. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)