Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions
0xDeadbeef (talk | contribs) Added hatnote |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
==== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepetaio Nokisi]] ==== |
==== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepetaio Nokisi]] ==== |
||
{{initiated|22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)|type=afd}} Last relisted on 7 June, needs closing. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 13:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
{{initiated|22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)|type=afd}} Last relisted on 7 June, needs closing. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 13:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
==== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle]]==== |
|||
{{initiated|16:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)|afd}} Discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements]] to redo the close by an uninvolved user. --[[User:Venkat TL|Venkat TL]] ([[User talk:Venkat TL|talk]]) 12:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
==== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
||
Revision as of 12:39, 17 June 2022
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 5 July 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. 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}} oder {{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
(Initiated 797 days ago on 30 May 2022) I request that this be formally closed. It appears that there may be a consensus here, but the result of the discussion needs to be logged. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 788 days ago on 7 June 2022) - in this section, the forecast is WP:SNOW. starship.paint (exalt) 09:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 866 days ago on 22 March 2022) Expired RFC that I started that has grown into a large, complex discussion where many proposals were considered. An experienced editor who knows how to evaluate consensus carefully would be helpful to close this discussion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 827 days ago on 29 April 2022) We have decided to close this RFC to partially rewrite it and start a new one. A formal closure is necessary in order not to create confusion with the new RFC that will be started. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:SDC's closure request. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kommentar In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the ANI thread closed yesterday. I'll ask on the article talk page if the participants there still wish the RfC to be closed. Question asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kommentar In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 825 days ago on 1 May 2022) Political article with no obvious consensus reached.--Lord Belbury (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 808 days ago on 18 May 2022) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 795 days ago on 31 May 2022) Requesting closure of RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles. This discussion has stagnated for long periods of time and there is no new arguments being added. It would be helpful if the closer had knowledge of Wikipedia naming guidelines, notability guidelines, and potentially a basic knowledge of history or linguistics. Poketama (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It would also be helpful if the closer could wade through a morass of discussion caused by a poorly-formatted and vague RfC. What is really needed is a more focused question, rather than some request that Indigenous names must be included in lede and infobox regardless of appropriateness or reliable sourcing. Consensus from experienced editors seems to be that these should be included on a case by case basis according to existing Wikipolicy, rather than mandated. The WP:SPA nature of editor raising the RfC should laso be noted. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 1 | 59 | 0 | 60 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 79 | 0 | 79 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
(Initiated 846 days ago on 10 April 2022) I'd say no consensus, but it was leaning delete in later !votes, so I will leave an admin to decide. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This was relisted after the timestamp posted here. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 02:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 803 days ago on 23 May 2022) Last relisted on 7 June, needs closing. Avilich (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 779 days ago on 16 June 2022) Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements to redo the close by an uninvolved user. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Major backlog of requests needing closure czar 17:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 956 days ago on 21 December 2021) No comments for more than a month. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 872 days ago on 16 March 2022) Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 861 days ago on 26 March 2022) The discussion dried 37 days ago. 10 days ago last comment was made. Folks have suggested asking for closure. Venkat TL (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 835 days ago on 22 April 2022) RM open for over 50 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Closed by Paine Ellsworth, 18:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
