Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 445
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 440 | ← | Archive 443 | Archive 444 | Archive 445 |
Scientific consensus statement signed by scientists, published by advocacy group
I don't need it particularly for anything but I'm trying to decide if a particular source is self-published. It's a scientific consensus statement signed by about 20 people, published by Save Tesla Park. It's unclear whether the scientists are associated with Tesla Park (which might make it self-published), but even if they are, does the sheer number of uninvolved people qualify as editorial review under the reliable sources policy? Or can advocacy group's publications (e.g. the Sierra Club, which is pretty big) qualify as non-self-published sources if they have good enough reputation (and possible editorial review)? For context, Save Tesla Park is a small-ish local group, I think, but not that small. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- For context this is related to the Corral Hollow article Mrfoogles (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- It does look like it is published by an advocacy group. What is claim is it being used for in the article? If is was published in a different setting like a newspaper or book or journal, it may be considered a RS. Sometimes advocacy group publications can be considered RS, but it matters on the claims being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like its from the same group as "savemountdiablo.org"
- https://www.sfchronicle.com/eastbay/article/A-stalled-housing-project-asks-Should-we-17029697.php
- https://www.sfchronicle.com/climate/article/flock-california-condors-spotted-contra-costa-18390891.php
- Originally thought it was a NIMBY front group, but SF chronicle suggests no? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say this is self-published as it not a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, and/or Save Tesla Park hasn't provided editorial oversight. Cortador (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, a self selected group for advocacy rather than something by a scientific organization. If some secondary site says something about them then that's where any justification for including would come from. NadVolum (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Concur with @Ramos1990, @Cortador, and @NadVolum. If the goal is to represent the viewpoint of this specific group of scientists or Save Tesla Park, the statement could be used as a primary source to reflect their position. But for scientific claims about the ecological value of the area, it would be preferable to use peer-reviewed studies or reports from established scientific organizations or government agencies. If reputable secondary sources have reported on it or the broader debate, those would likely be more appropriate sources. W9793 (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC: +972 Magazine
What is the reliability of +972 Magazine?
- Option 1: Generally reliable
- Option 2: Additional considerations
- Option 3: Generally unreliable
- Option 4: Deprecate
See previous discussions at RSN: [1], [2], [3], etc. See previous discussions in article Talk space: [4], [5], etc. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Survey (+972 Magazine)
- 1 for the Levant: While +972 used to be a group blog, it is now a more conventional online magazine with editorial controls [6]. There is evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS including The Washington Post [7], PBS [8], Al Jazeera [9], Vox [10], NPR [11], and CNN [12]. It has engaged with The Guardian on collaborative journalism projects [13]. It has named gatekeepers [14] and a physical personality by which it can be held liable for what it publishes. Use should be limited to news/events in the Levant; the publication's budget [15] precludes the realistic possibility it has original newsgathering capabilities beyond its home region and any reportage from outside the area are likely précis and should be referenced to their source. There is no evidence of USEBYOTHERS for coverage of topics outside the Eastern Mediterranean. Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Clarifying addendum as to purpose of RfC: Dispute and contention have been endemic with this source, and the hundreds of articles in which it is used, on an ongoing basis for 10 years, with the most recent discussion ending without clear resolution just three months ago (e.g. here [16], and here [17], and here [18], and here [19], and here [20], and here [21] and numerous other places). Due to these frequent and ongoing disputes, often metastasizing into discussions that are left unresolved, I am left with current and active concern and confusion as to whether or not I can use or remove this source from an article and this question can only be resolved by formal community input, as all informal processes -- exhaustively and repeatedly attempted over the last decade without previous resort to RfC -- have failed. Chetsford (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1ish for investigative pieces, 2 for opinion pieces: We should probably still use WP:OPINION policy for opinion pieces and only use opinion pieces with attribution. Some of the investigative pieces seem to have garnered respect from other respected news orgs, such as the Lavender AI piece being cited by WaPo. Does anyone know which articles are opinion pieces and which ones are investigative, and how to tell?User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bad RFC The concept of pre-approving sources isn't valid. Any editors objections in the future can't be heard in this discussion, as that is the nature of causality. Without any current concerns with the sources there is simply no need for an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- No valid reason to have this RFC per discussion below. In addition, there is no reason not to use this source.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Option 4 and this whole deprecation system (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bad RfC "Option 4" deprecation (or depreciation as someone people seem to think it is) should only be proposed as part of an RfC with a very good reason, it should not be a standard option on an RfC at this noticeboard. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- 1. An excellent source. Rigorous reporting, invaluable investigations. Crucially, in contrast to e.g. al-Jazeera it does not try to be comprehensive, but only reports on issues where it has itself properly sourced the information, so it is far more reliable than other Israel/Palestine outlets even though its coverage is more narrow. Of course, opinion should be treated as opinion, and it doesn't always clearly differentiate news and opinion (much of its content is "analysis"/"commentary", i.e. somewhere between news and opinion), but this issue c an easily be dealt with case by case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- 1 - Bob has this covered fairly well, but professionally run and staffed, and has a stellar reputation internationally. nableezy - 22:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
1: It's a very competent source. I've never seen anything other than good work coming out of it. Normal rules apply to opinion, of course. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion (+972 Magazine)
I don't think an RfC on this source is needed at this time, per RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed
. The source is only used in about ~150 articles, and the most recent discussion on the source was nine years ago. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The most recent discussion was three months ago (sorry, neglected to add the March '24 discussion to the lead; now fixed). It's been cited ~500 times [22] (albeit not exclusively in mainspace). Given its extremely limited editorial focus, I feel that meets the threshold of wide use. Chetsford (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any active discussion that the source is unreliable? Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable. This appears to be getting the source pre-approved, which is unnecessary and not a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable." My read on the March discussion was the exact opposite. Fortunately, we'll be able to sort-out these divergent interpretations via RfC. Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The March discussion was the result of disputed usage at an article but note that the cite remains in that article so it can be said that the objections were not upheld. If there are not any other recent disputes, then it seems that the credibility of the source is not being seriously challenged so this RFC may not really be needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the outcome of that discussion. As for the source at the center of the last dispute remaining in the article in question, I'm inclined to apply Occam's razor to assume it simply means no one bothered to remove it, rather than it representing a coded message that the source is reliable. Given our impasse, some means of resolution is apparently needed. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The first type of consensus is by editing, so yes the source staying in the article does show some form of consensus. Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed, having an RFC just because shouldn't be how it's done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed" While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, you have stated your interpretive assumption the last discussion arrived at a clear conclusion that +972 is reliable and I have said my interpretation is that it arrived at a clear conclusion that it's unreliable. That seems like an issue that needs to be resolved. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. "The first type of consensus is by editing" The second type of consensus is through formal process when an editorial impasse occurs, as is happening here between you and I. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS ("When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit... several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment...") I have chosen not to remove +972 from the article in question -- despite my interpretation of the March discussion -- only in the interest of maintaining editorial decorum and order. With due respect, it seems unnecessarily pointy and procedural to intransigently insist it first be removed to create a formal record of disagreement before you will indulge any further discussion on the topic. Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss once more that particular cite, that can be done, at the relevant article, or even here, once again. There is no need to have an RFC to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "If you want to discuss once more that particular cite" I want to address all the citations in which it's used across the project, and in every article in which it appears. Chetsford (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss once more that particular cite, that can be done, at the relevant article, or even here, once again. There is no need to have an RFC to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed" While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, you have stated your interpretive assumption the last discussion arrived at a clear conclusion that +972 is reliable and I have said my interpretation is that it arrived at a clear conclusion that it's unreliable. That seems like an issue that needs to be resolved. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. "The first type of consensus is by editing" The second type of consensus is through formal process when an editorial impasse occurs, as is happening here between you and I. Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS ("When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit... several processes are available for consensus-building (third opinions, dispute resolution noticeboard, requests for comment...") I have chosen not to remove +972 from the article in question -- despite my interpretation of the March discussion -- only in the interest of maintaining editorial decorum and order. With due respect, it seems unnecessarily pointy and procedural to intransigently insist it first be removed to create a formal record of disagreement before you will indulge any further discussion on the topic. Chetsford (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The first type of consensus is by editing, so yes the source staying in the article does show some form of consensus. Also there is simply no current issue to be discussed, having an RFC just because shouldn't be how it's done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- While not doubting the genuineness of your belief, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the outcome of that discussion. As for the source at the center of the last dispute remaining in the article in question, I'm inclined to apply Occam's razor to assume it simply means no one bothered to remove it, rather than it representing a coded message that the source is reliable. Given our impasse, some means of resolution is apparently needed. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- The March discussion was the result of disputed usage at an article but note that the cite remains in that article so it can be said that the objections were not upheld. If there are not any other recent disputes, then it seems that the credibility of the source is not being seriously challenged so this RFC may not really be needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable." My read on the March discussion was the exact opposite. Fortunately, we'll be able to sort-out these divergent interpretations via RfC. Chetsford (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any active discussion that the source is unreliable? Even the discussion from March seems to have consensus that it's reliable. This appears to be getting the source pre-approved, which is unnecessary and not a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somewhat agree with BilledMammal. No need to start a discussion for a source that is not used that often. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It would be used more often if people stopped claiming it was less than reliable. nableezy - 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable? If there has been it would certainly give more meaning to this RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable?" Here [23], and here [24], and here [25], and here [26], and here [27] (and more I'm omitting for purposes of brevity), plus numerous instances where editors have reverted statements sourced to it sans discussion with non-RS edit summaries, etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- No not discussions from a decade ago, recent discussions. Who recently has been claiming it's unreliable? Diff of edits were it's been removed as unreliable would be as good (if they are recent). Otherwise go use the source, if someone objects start a discussion with them, if you can't come to a consensus come back here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- This continually moving target where you won't engage in discussion unless your demand for examples is met, then when examples are provided they're not of sufficient currency, then when those of sufficient currency are provided they're not of sufficient quantity, is difficult for me to track, though this may be a personal failing and, if so, I apologize.
In any case, it seems we're at a discursive impasse that informal processes are incapable of resolving and a formal process would be the best way forward. If you'd like to start an RfC on the applicability of the RfC I won't object, though, I'd suggest it'd be needlessly procedural and would be easier to simply participate in the RfC or not, at your singular discretion. This will probably be my last comment on the matter as I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I appreciated the conversation. You raised many interesting points on the ontology of the RSN that are worth future contemplation and I can assure you I will spend time thinking about them and seeking-out ways to incorporate them into my own editing. Chetsford (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- This continually moving target where you won't engage in discussion unless your demand for examples is met, then when examples are provided they're not of sufficient currency, then when those of sufficient currency are provided they're not of sufficient quantity, is difficult for me to track, though this may be a personal failing and, if so, I apologize.
- No not discussions from a decade ago, recent discussions. Who recently has been claiming it's unreliable? Diff of edits were it's been removed as unreliable would be as good (if they are recent). Otherwise go use the source, if someone objects start a discussion with them, if you can't come to a consensus come back here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable?" Here [23], and here [24], and here [25], and here [26], and here [27] (and more I'm omitting for purposes of brevity), plus numerous instances where editors have reverted statements sourced to it sans discussion with non-RS edit summaries, etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is questions of reliability necessarily the reason why its not used often? I mean it clearly still is used, often with attribution.
- Though, I suppose based on Chetsford's reasoning, if folks have questions about reliability, we should consider doing this RFC to confirm reliability, even if some of those questions happened a while ago. Having more choices of reliable sources is always good. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Other than the March discussion have there been others where it has been claimed to be unreliable? If there has been it would certainly give more meaning to this RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- It would be used more often if people stopped claiming it was less than reliable. nableezy - 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree with it being generally reliable, I also concur with those above that an RfC isn't really necessary here - there's not much discussion of use in recent times, and what does exist generally agrees it's reliable. The Kip (contribs) 05:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Verification of a phrase
There is a disagreement between editors on whether this article (archived) from The Daily Telegraph verifies the phrase "battle of Kherson". SaintPaulOfTarsus has indicated twice ([28][29]) that it does not, however, I have found the phrase in the article. A discussion was being opened up here since it seems other editors need to verify to see if the article verifies the phrase or if it does not verify the phrase.
P.S. I do not know where else to go for a verification-related issue (excluding the article talk page with 52 views in 30 days) and WP:V mentions that for discussion on sources, this is the place to come, hence why I opened a discussion here as this pertains to a verification-related discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Greetings WeatherWriter, you seem to have misinterpreted my use of the failed verification template, feel free to leave a message on my talk page first if there's any ambiguity with my edits in the future. I wasn't disagreeing that the phrase "battle of Kherson" can be found in the Telegraph article; rather my issue is with the sentence
The battle of Kherson began on 24 February 2022, as part of the southern Ukraine campaign of the Russian invasion of Ukraine
, specifically the first part of the sentence. I'm sure we can agree that no exact date is specified in the Telegraph source. Anyone else reading this can consider this matter resolved. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Blog comment
Gaza Health Ministry#Other analysis cites an opinion from "Ken M", an anonymous commenter on Lior Pachter's blog. This would normally run afoul of WP:USERGENERATED, but there has been an interesting argument for keeping it: the comment was quoted in another blog by James Joyner, who arguably has some relevant credentials.
Does inclusion in Joyner's blog successfully "fix" the reliability of the anonymous comment? My sense is that this could work in principle, but in this case Joyner doesn't really discuss the comment, so he's not really corroborating the argument and lending his credibility to it. He does call it an "insight" though, so that's something.
This was discussed a little on the article's talk page, but input from uninvolved editors would be helpful. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ken M? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I assume it's coincidence but that's interesting! — xDanielx T/C\R 00:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that this is a situation of a citation/link rather than a source/reference. Content has to be cited to a reliable source, i.e. we write based on the sources, but we can link to whatever. That is to say: if Lyin' Larry's Blog O' Lies publishes an article called "Edward Snowden Is The King Of England", this is obviously untrue, and should not be cited as fact anywhere (and indeed shouldn't be cited as opinion unless it's WP:DUE. But if someone in a real publication mentions this blog post, it's helpful to our readers if, when mentioning that, we also link them directly to the post. This doesn't mean Lyin' Larry's Blog O' Lies is a reliable source, just that (given that someone else already established it's noteworthy) we're giving people a way to see what he said. jp×g🗯️ 02:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree in principle, but is this noteworthy in this case? It’s one blog citing a comment on another. Seems undue. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
panarmenian.net
i recently removed a link to https://www.panarmenian.net from WP:WikiProject Armenia because it's marked red by a script i use, owing to being designated as unreliable over at WP:New page patrol source guide, and it was restored by (courtesy ping) Archives908. looked into it further, and it's only been actually discussed once at RSN with minimal participation back in 2020 (/Archive 314#Panarmenian.net and pan.am (PanARMENIAN.Net)) and as a brief aside to another discussion in 2022. it's used in quite a lot of articles, so i think it'd be good to nail some consensus down if possible. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- it should also be noted that our own article on PanARMENIAN.Net has several valid maintenance tags indicating that it's promotional, so i don't think it will be particularly useful for our purposes here. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is an established media outlet, you can find their editorial team's contacts here. Are there any reasons to doubt its reliability? Alaexis¿question? 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- i don't know; that's why i'm opening this discussion - it's been marked "unreliable" for a few years but there's not been much discussion about it; if it's a good source then our project pages should reflect that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the first time I encounter highlighting that is not based on any community consensus. I'll ask this question at the script's talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing sources in context. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- this isn't an issue with the script itself, as the script just reflects what our various source lists, such as the NPP source guide, say. i'm not sure what the benefit of moving a discussion here to a much less visible location is, and i think it's worth actually discussing this source on its merits. the link above doesn't give much detail about their editorial team - no names, credentials, or anything. it seems like most of their stories don't have bylines either, from what i can tell. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- It *should* reflect the WP:RSP, but now it doesn't and this is a problem.
- As you can see at the top of this page, this noticeboard is for discussing sources in context and the initiators of discussions are supposed to "supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Alaexis¿question? 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- this isn't an issue with the script itself, as the script just reflects what our various source lists, such as the NPP source guide, say. i'm not sure what the benefit of moving a discussion here to a much less visible location is, and i think it's worth actually discussing this source on its merits. the link above doesn't give much detail about their editorial team - no names, credentials, or anything. it seems like most of their stories don't have bylines either, from what i can tell. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Its article is almost purely promotional. Unsourced praise, a mission statement, awards and recognition and notable projects none of which are valid by our policies. I've stripped a lot out. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the first time I encounter highlighting that is not based on any community consensus. I'll ask this question at the script's talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing sources in context. Alaexis¿question? 21:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- i don't know; that's why i'm opening this discussion - it's been marked "unreliable" for a few years but there's not been much discussion about it; if it's a good source then our project pages should reflect that. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Closed archived discussions, again
RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six) was archived on 2 May 2024. Tpbradbury edited the archive to "close" it on 28 June 2024. David Gerard reverted on 30 June 2024. Red-tailed Hawk put it back on on 2 July 2024. I hope that Tpbradbury will read earlier thread Closed archived discussions, and the threads it references from before that, then self-revert. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE should not be necessary when the very act was wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The closure faithfully represents the discussion's consensus. Would you prefer that the user have unarchived the discussion, inserted the exact same closing statement, and then waited for the bot to come around and archive it again? I'm struggling to understand what we gain from that other than extra steps to attain the fundamentally same result. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do think we should unarchive discussions before closing them, unless some extreme space issue makes such an action unwise. A new thread with a pointer to the closed discussion would also help. I don't think we have a rule against closing archived discussions, nor do I think we should have one. Our backlog at WP:Closure requests is frequently longer than the archiving period, and I don't want to encourage "bumping" behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- For reference it was a requested close. CNC (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hear the NOTBURO argument, but it would be nice if there was some way for participants to be notified when a discussion is closed, even if it's closed in the archives. Right now, neither watchlisting nor subscribing will tell you when an archived discussion is closed. Pulling it out of the archives and closing it will (I believe) notify both page watchers and thread subscribers. I'm not sure if there is another, better way, to accomplish the same thing. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's no need to unarchive discussions, but I would suggest adding a notification to the board that the RFC has been closed. Unarchiving discussions just causes the board load to become overburdened and difficult to load. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- The archiving on the page is short to keep the board functioning. Do the close in the archive, and notify the noticeboard it's been done. There's no need to bring sometimes extremely large discussions back from the archive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think we should make it so the noticeboard doesn't archive stuff unless it's closed, or at least make it respect something like a "pending-close" template... We have an entire stupid beer disaster because the bot decided to archive that UNBELIEVABLY GIGANTIC ADL RfC, which I have to manually bring back, which messed up the archiving for a while. How idiotic would it have been if that whole discussion had just gotten archived after months of discussion without anybody bothering to close it?? jp×g🗯️ 20:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- There was already a close request at WP:CR fir the ADL discussion and it had details of which archive it could be found in.
- As an example of a better option. The RFC for Mondoweiss was archived, the close was posted to the noticeboard, all without making loading the noticeboard an issue. As the close went to review it obviously didn't cause any issues with visibility. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- This sort of practice is sensible. Balances the WP:NOTBUREAU concerns with the ability of watchers to see that a discussion was closed. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- So for example, this RfC I noticed the bot removed the tag from (yes, I occasionally stalk archives). I would like to close it with the relatively clear consensus that has been established; should I return it to the noticeboard with a closure, or simply notify of a closure? For reference sake it's not a particularly byte heavy RfC, and despite the lack of CR, I believe it should be closed. CNC (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be unarchived and then closed. Most people don't have the archives on their watchlists. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right, follow the rule at the top of the archive page ("Do not edit the contents of this page.") and follow Help:Archiving a talk page ("... unarchive it by copying it back to the talk page from the archive, and deleting it from the archive.") But not on a discussion that's been effectively closed, as here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)