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 18 October 2017); 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

Template talk:Birth date and age#RfC about whether there should be an infant month-day and super year-day parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Birth date and age#RfC about whether there should be an infant month-day and super year-day parameter (Initiated 35 days ago on 13 October 2017)? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted: lots of suggestions, none in agreement. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Snuge purveyor: Relist has expired. It seems like there is a consensus that, while there should be no new parameters, that the proposed functions should be performed automatically (without the need for parameters).--Nevéselbert 17:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables (Initiated 90 days ago on 19 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Consensus is rough on this discussion that involves some of Wikipedia's core policies. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 16:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber#RfC: Blind poll

(Initiated 83 days ago on 26 August 2017) The RfC expired before closure. I have reopened it and request closure. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

James J. Lambden, it's natural for RfCs to expire before a close. They are supposed to run their course and then be closed (usually anyway). Re-opening them with a fresh time stamp causes the RfC to start all over again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3#Veselnitskaya/Trump Tower-New York Times report

(Initiated 57 days ago on 21 September 2017) Assessment required on the views expressed on the legitimacy of an entry concerning reportage on the Trump presidency. Many thanks. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3#Request for comment on Trump timeline listing practices

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 September 2017) Assessment needed on views concerning the inclusion of a list of diners in the Trump presidency timeline. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3#Trump timeline content exclusions

(Initiated 54 days ago on 23 September 2017) Assessment needed on views concerning whether or not only the specific actions and statements of the Trump presidency may be included on the presidency timeline. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3#Duplication

(Initiated 59 days ago on 19 September 2017) Assessment needed on views concerning whether or not information is eligible for exclusion from the Trump presidency timeline for the given reason that the particular information is also included on other pages. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#Should we mention previous Democratic opposition to Comey? and Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#RFC about opposition to Comey prior to dismissal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#Should we mention previous Democratic opposition to Comey? (Initiated 73 days ago on 5 September 2017) and Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#RFC about opposition to Comey prior to dismissal (Initiated 62 days ago on 16 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#RfC: Replace categories of poly/diatomic nonmetal with less active/active nonmetal

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#RfC: Replace categories of poly/diatomic nonmetal with less active/active nonmetal (Initiated 69 days ago on 9 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Ducati Monster#RfC on calling the Ducati Monster a naked, standard or muscle bike

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 September 2017) The bot is trying to close the door so this one must be about done. Please assess consensus and close Talk:Ducati Monster#RfC on calling the Ducati Monster a naked, standard or muscle bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Legobot is not "trying to close the door", it is removing the {{rfc}} template because more than thirty days have elapsed since you started the RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. Either way. It's about time it was closed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Manny Pacquiao#RfC: Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations

(Initiated 50 days ago on 27 September 2017) RFC expired with unclear consensus. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:The Orville#Trival or Precedent ship lengths?

(Initiated 18 days ago on 30 October 2017) To put it bluntly, this RfC is flawed at best. The OP came to the talk page 10 days ago asking where content should be placed and when told that it isn't appropriate he wasn't heard from until today. It appears he has just added an RfC tag to his response expecting that was sufficient to create an RfC, which it isn't. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, the RfC statement should be neutral and brief. It is neither neither neutral nor brief and lacks focus. The OP hasn't really explained what he expects from participants so I don't see any useful outcome from the RfC. --AussieLegend () 19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Family Guy#Participant survey

(Initiated 46 days ago on 2 October 2017) Contentious issue requires close by uninvolved editor. --AussieLegend () 02:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation

(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 October 2017) Getting on for a month old, and there hasn't been any new discussion for a couple of weeks.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation?--Cúchullain t/c 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS (Initiated 53 days ago on 25 September 2017). I agree with George Ho at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 24#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS that a close would be useful to summarize how the community views WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed

  • Main discussion has reached it's natural conclusion, no substantive comments have been made in almost 2 weeks. --Jayron32 12:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Nyttend, for his opinions, since he relisted the entire discussion.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele#RfC on measurement issues

An RfC on the appropriate default units of measurement for a battle in the First World War. Most substantive discussion ended quickly and subsequent commentary was mainly acrimonious in nature. Has been stalled for more than two weeks, with no new additions. (Initiated 35 days ago on 13 October 2017) LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: San Bernardino attack

Expired RfC. Special attention may be needed on the issue of "sourced/verifiable" vs. "significant part of reliable source coverage". (Initiated 32 days ago on 16 October 2017)Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)#Request for comment: Trump Democratic debate tweet

Expired RfC. Consensus seems pretty clear, but I anticipate that one contributor in particular will fail to get the point. A closing summary world be helpful. (Initiated 33 days ago on 15 October 2017)Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 8#Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor

(Initiated 40 days ago on 8 October 2017) One of the discussants specifically suggests an outside admin (who is not regularly at CfD) to close this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request

(Initiated 193 days ago on 8 May 2017) A long discussion has accompanied a slow-motion revert war over the inclusion of a journalist's cited views, which may be UNDUE. The talk thread is at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#Goodin redux. Could an Admin please review and close these discussions so as to settle whether there is consensus to include the comments of Mr. Goodin in the article? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER

(Initiated 161 days ago on 9 June 2017) Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Wikipedia content? . --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Should we refer to living former politicians as statesmen?

(Initiated 60 days ago on 17 September 2017) This discussion has been active for just over a week, although given the amount of feedback I don't feel it's necessary to let the whole thing drag out. It seems like there is a growing consensus in favour of going by a case-by-case basis regarding whether to refer to BLP politicians as statesman. There also seems to be some agreement that the term should (if used) be backed up by reliable sources, preferably inline citations. Would an admin please review the discussion and gauge the consensus? Thanks.--Nevéselbert 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lead wording and links

(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 September 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#Lead_wording_and_links. Thanks, Tvx1 12:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables.

(Initiated 35 days ago on 13 October 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables. Thanks, Tvx1 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Carleton Knights football

(Initiated 9 days ago on 8 November 2017) Should the following archival documentary be included as an external link at Carleton Knights football? "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnnlaxer (talkcontribs) 15:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure&oldid=810811164"
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