Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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 20 March 2018); 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.

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.

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.

Contents

Requests for closure

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes

I am asking if an uninvolved admin can close this topic. It is not the first time that the naming conventions at WP:NYCPT have been disputed by editors in the past that are non-contributors to the project. The argument has been brought up in the past that disambiguators for the station names that fall under the WP:NYCPT scope are long and unnecessary, but we have precedent as to why they are disambiguated the way they are. I do not want another argument to break out like it did a few years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14#Edit threat:. Thanks in advance. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. To add on, there were two proposals in the past to move hundreds of articles to conform to WP:USSTATIONS's naming conventions, in here and here. Both were unsuccessful. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    Correction: I was not trying to enforce USSTATION with that requested move, I was trying to generically remove unneeded dabs (why is why I originally ommitted the word station). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@LRG5784: There is no question here. What exactly are you looking for a closer to do? AIRcorn (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn: As a fellow NYC Public Transport member, I think LRG5784 wants the thread to be closed. I'm assuming that this would be done using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, an action that would probably not need admin rights since this is not an RFC. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I know the process of how to close, I am just not sure how to close this one. I started reading the thread and as someone a long way from New York and with little interest in public transport it was tedious (no offense meant as it is obviously an interesting area to many). It is long, there are a lot of (often vague) references to past discussion, a few personality conflicts and no real questions that a closer could find consensus on. It is a typical convoluted Wikiproject discussion between contributors that are familiar with each other and have strong views on a very specific area within the topic. So I guess does it need closing? Is it worth an editors time to read that thread to try and figure out a consensus? Best I could do would be to close it and say start a RFC, which is the next step anyway for these type of discussions and doesn't need a close. AIRcorn (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Aircorn: No offense taken, some people will really like trains and most people won't care that much. On further thought, I don't think this discussion needs closing, since it's not an RFC. I don't believe this needs a whole separate RFC either, since the discussion is about a United States railroad station guideline that already has agreement, except in Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. The guideline has it that U.S. railroad, subway, light rail, etc. stations should be named under the format "X station", but New York City has so many similarly-named subway stations that reaching a consensus on this particular matter is very hard.
The discussion was basically about how best to move subway station pages to conform with the guideline, and whether NYC transport pages in general were so complicated that they should be exempted from that guideline for now. The discussion was deadlocked for a while, and some personal attacks were made in that discussion (mostly by the admins who supported the guideline and couldn't wait). That's when this request was made on WP:AN/RFC. Afterward, I proposed a new way to transition to the new guideline, and there was some agreement and disagreement to my suggestion.
I suppose that based on the short context I just gave, a formal close isn't necessary. Just letting the discussion run its course is fine. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Westfield Garden State Plaza#RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Westfield Garden State Plaza#RFC (Initiated 40 days ago on 10 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez#RFC on sexual harassment material in BLP

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez#RFC on sexual harassment material in BLP (Initiated 39 days ago on 11 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov#RfC about how best to describe Bulgakov's views on Ukraine

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov#RfC about how best to describe Bulgakov's views on Ukraine (Initiated 39 days ago on 11 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report (Initiated 38 days ago on 12 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great#RfC about choice of top photo

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great#RfC about choice of top photo (Initiated 38 days ago on 12 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Comedian#Comedienne (March 2018)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comedian#Comedienne (March 2018) (Initiated 38 days ago on 12 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#RfC about the Melanie Kirkpatrick quote

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#RfC about the Melanie Kirkpatrick quote (Initiated 35 days ago on 15 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Great Courses#RfC -- Course categories and professor names

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Great Courses#RfC -- Course categories and professor names (Initiated 35 days ago on 15 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Evanescence#Officcial RfC on the band's genre

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Evanescence#Officcial RfC on the band's genre (Initiated 34 days ago on 16 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent#Biased and misleading title

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent#Biased and misleading title (Initiated 33 days ago on 17 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article? (Initiated 31 days ago on 19 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals

(Initiated 11 days ago on 8 April 2018)

  • This is a huge discussion that impacts every corner of Wikipedia, as such it is going to possibly need multiple closers. I am placing this here as a way to find non involved editors that would be willing to take on the task. This is a new RfC yes, but there is a-lot here to process and digest in the discussion to come up with a conclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm happy to take this one on, with others if needed. Mdann52 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    And, I would be happy to join the bandwagon:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Well thanks, while it isn't time to close yet it is good to know people are on board here to help out. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_10#Category:Descendants_of_John_Ames_(born_1647)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 28 February 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_23#Years_and_decades_in_Italy_(1000-1859)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_28#Category:Steeplechase_horse_racing

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line

Other types of closing requests

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=837292360"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA