A loose necktie (talk | contribs) |
Jtbobwaysf (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
: Discussion has continued in a significant way after the discussion was restored. I am waiting before considering a close here (and am tagging not to archive before the end of the month). [[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>]]) 02:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
: Discussion has continued in a significant way after the discussion was restored. I am waiting before considering a close here (and am tagging not to archive before the end of the month). [[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>]]) 02:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
====[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Forbes_Advisor]]==== |
|||
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== |
|||
{{Initiated|09:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC) |type=rfc}} Snow is falling and I see the discussion will be archived. If this request for closure is improper, then please feel free to close this request. Thanks! [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf|talk]]) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Place this line below the heading: |
|||
{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}} |
|||
If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a |type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. |type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Intiated/doc for a list of codes. |
|||
--> |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} |
|||
=== Deletion discussions === |
=== Deletion discussions === |
Revision as of 09:12, 17 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.
![](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 29 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 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.
![](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 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.
![](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.
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
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 330#RfC: Asian News International (ANI)
(Initiated 1247 days ago on 28 January 2021) Expired RfC with no discussion since February 2021 that would benefit from a formal close by an experienced and uninvolved editor for WP:RSP. Note that this was also bizarrely archived again at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI). — MarkH21talk 16:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Philosophy_Tube#RFC: Gender transition and MOS:DEADNAME
(Initiated 1244 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)
- I don't think this needs formal closure as the outcome is clear—see Talk:Philosophy Tube#Conclusion. I've already implemented the consensus and it's been standing for over a month without an experienced editor disputing it or that the RfC achieved consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Palestinian_enclaves#"Bantustans" analogy in the lead
(Initiated 1229 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 1224 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:Demographics of Eritrea#RfC on UN DESA 2019 Eritrea population estimate
(Initiated 1211 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#RfC: Kommersant
(Initiated 1210 days ago on 6 March 2021) This RfC has been running for just over a month and discussion has died down. There are a few arguments in there between Option 1 (generally reliable) and Option 2 (marginally reliable/additional considerations apply), and several editors gave different ratings depending on the time at which the piece was published (noting that earlier Kommersant pieces may have been more reliable than more recently published ones (á la Newsweek). Some editors (including me) give a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument, while other editors generally draw concerns regarding Media freedom in Russia. Since I'm involved and it's not crystal clear to me what the outcome is owing to relative support for the arguments presented on each side, I'm posting here to ask for formal closure from an uninvolved editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jewish Chronicle
(Initiated 1203 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)
- Discussion has continued in a significant way after the discussion was restored. I am waiting before considering a close here (and am tagging not to archive before the end of the month). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_Forbes_Advisor
(Initiated 1176 days ago on 9 April 2021) Snow is falling and I see the discussion will be archived. If this request for closure is improper, then please feel free to close this request. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/26_personas_para_salvar_al_mundo#26 personas para salvar al mundo
(Initiated 1197 days ago on 19 March 2021) Discussion has wound down with what looks like no consensus. Was relisted twice already, second time was over 10 days ago. A loose necktie (talk) 02:51, 15 April 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 1771 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)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 177#Convert all English variant notices to editnotices
(Initiated 1265 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)
- @SMcCandlish: I have restored it from the archive and added the "do not archive" template. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:14, 4 April 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 1258 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could use a closing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:
Done with no consensus for the use of the word "coup". A loose necktie (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea
(Initiated 1244 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)
Talk:Chinese Communist Party#Question on Controversy section
(Initiated 1234 days ago on 10 February 2021) I was involved in the discussion, though it's very close. The discussion largely focused on whether to keep a "controversy" section within the page for Chinese Communist Party or whether it would be better to split it off into its own article. There has not been discussion in over a month. If an experienced editor could take a look and provide closure, it would be helpful for moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 March#Keith Gill (investor)
(Initiated 1215 days ago on 1 March 2021) – Please close this discussion when possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 05:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#All_options,_redux
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 7 March 2021) - An experienced editor familiar with policies is invited to close this well attended (but slightly disrupted) discussion and determine if there is consensus for any of the presented options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Murder_of_Vincent_Chin#Requested_move_17_March_2021
(Initiated 1199 days ago on 17 March 2021) Could an admin please close this move discussion? Thank you, Some1 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Some1:
Done with a consensus to move. A loose necktie (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Talk:State_v._Chauvin#Death_VS_Killing
(Initiated 1183 days ago on 2 April 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)