|
Archives |
---|
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by ClueBot III. |
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 editorâeven one involved in the discussionâmay close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 March 2016); 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 discussionsâsee 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.
Contents
- 1 Requests for closure
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 1.1.1 Talk:SĂ©ralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
- 1.1.2 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
- 1.1.3 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
- 1.1.4 Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
- 1.1.5 Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
- 1.1.6 Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
- 1.1.7 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?
- 1.1.8 Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
- 1.1.9 Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")
- 1.1.10 Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede
- 1.1.11 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?
- 1.1.12 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes
- 1.1.13 Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.
- 1.1.14 Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR
- 1.1.15 Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?
- 1.1.16 Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes
- 1.1.17 Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox
- 1.1.18 Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?
- 1.1.19 Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article
- 1.1.20 Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism
- 1.1.21 Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead
- 1.1.22 Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?
- 1.1.23 Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment
- 1.1.24 Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal
- 1.1.25 Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response
- 1.1.26 Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer
- 1.1.27 Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection
- 1.1.28 Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?
- 1.1.29 Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?
- 1.1.30 Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?
- 1.1.31 Talk:European_Graduate_School#RfC
- 1.1.32 Template talk: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote
- 1.2 Backlogs
- 1.3 XfD
- 1.4 Administrative
- 1.4.1 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
- 1.4.2 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
- 1.4.3 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD
- 1.4.4 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_interaction_ban_with_User:Winkelvi
- 1.5 Requested moves
- 1.1 Requests for comment
Requests for closure
Requests for comment
Talk:SĂ©ralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SĂ©ralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 122 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think that Ncmvocalist is correct. Nobody seems to be edit-warring over those two questions, a lot has changed since then (more than 200 edits and work by User:SlimVirgin and User:Tryptofish, both of whom are skilled with this sort of problem), a practical compromise seems to be in place, and the person who started the RFC retired weeks ago and requested that his account be blocked. The likely outcome is only to enshrine, as The Eternal Consensusâą, the results of a single discussion about whether the words "peer-review" should appear in the article (current, stable state: yes, but maybe not as many times as some anti-GMO POV pushers would like) and whether the articles should be used as primary sources (current, stable state: the re-published one is cited as a source to say that it was re-published, and both versions are prominently linked as ==External links==, which is probably more than some pro-GMO POV pushers would like). It would probably be better to leave this alone, and let editors use their best judgment over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 81 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 64 days ago on 10 February 2016)
- This is now located in an archive at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21. Someone willing to dig into one of the lamest contentious discussions of all time should assess whether it's worth dragging out of an archive or not. ~ RobTalk 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 59 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?
This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Place of birth in Infobox (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material") (Initiated 58 days ago on 16 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Rfc regarding sentence in the lede (Initiated 55 days ago on 19 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (Initiated 53 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (Initiated 43 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc. (Initiated 48 days ago on 26 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Penny#WP:ENGVAR (Initiated 66 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office#Rfc: How shall Elizabeth II be presented? (Initiated 64 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes (Initiated 52 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox (Initiated 42 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? (Initiated 42 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article (Initiated 42 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note to closer: Please do read the discussion section on this one. There was a compromise solution proposed and generally accepted there that isn't reflected in the numerical vote. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism (Initiated 48 days ago on 26 February 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead (Initiated 53 days ago on 21 February 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye#RfC on lead. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? (Initiated 51 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sicario (2015 film)#Request for comment (Initiated 42 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal (Initiated 42 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002#Spanish response (Initiated 57 days ago on 17 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC: Merge to Richard B. Spencer (Initiated 39 days ago on 6 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC: Criticism subsection (Initiated 53 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? (Initiated 46 days ago on 28 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Corporal punishment#RfC: Merge "Campaigns against corporal punishment" into "Corporal punishment"? (Initiated 43 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pepperdine University#RfC: Should the current "In popular culture" section be significantly modified or deleted? (Initiated 61 days ago on 13 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:European_Graduate_School#RfC
An uninvolved admin needed to close. (Initiated 43 days ago on 2 March 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote
We need an uninvolved admin to close the RfC on whether or not the popular vote should be included in the template. That discussion is located here. Please note that this topic has also been discussed outside of the RfC. Thanks. Prcc27đ (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 95 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Requested moves
We currently have 89 discussions in the backlog, and it's growing every day. Several of them date to January 2016.--CĂșchullain t/c 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 February
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since February 2016.--CĂșchullain t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 March
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--CĂșchullain t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
XfD
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 186 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg
Would an admin please close Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 January 18#File:The Testament of Sister New Devil Vol.1 Blu-Ray.jpg, or perhaps relist it if you think that is appropriate. It just seems to have been left open, and there hasn't been any new comments in over a month. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- This has now been closed by User:Oiyarbepsy, so it looks like this is taken care of now. Calathan (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 41 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 36 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD
Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_interaction_ban_with_User:Winkelvi
Discuss seems to have reached a lull. Only comments in last few days are comments to make sure it doesn't get archived without admin action. only (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
- Talk:See You Again (Wiz Khalifa song)#Requested move 29 February 2016; thread has been open for over a month, and RMs typically last a week. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's a huge backlog at RM if anyone wants to help out. I've just done around 20, but still loads left... Number 57 20:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:The_Signpost_(Wikipedia)#Requested_move_3_March_2016 = been open for over one month. Would like it to be closed either way so we can move on and focus on Quality improvement of the article itself. Thank you, â Cirt (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016 - Would an experienced user or Admin, assess the consensus and move the page if deemed so?VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)