Wikipedia:Closure requests

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.

Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 2 May 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 25 May 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.

Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement 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.

Notes about closing

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.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions

WP:NFCR open discussions

We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:

1. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg

    Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox

    Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

3. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS

    Closed by Werieth (talk · contribs). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

4. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg

    Closed by ‎Sven Manguard (talk · contribs). -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

5. Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin

There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:

1. Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights (initiated 24 August 2013)
2. Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"? (initiated 22 October 2013)
3. Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war (initiated 22 October 2013)

My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (Talk:Mark Steyn#"human rights activist" or "free speech activist"?, Talk:Mark Steyn#So now we have a edit war, and Talk:Mark Steyn#Request for Comment) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute Talk:Mark Steyn#human rights. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).

The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute#RfC: Should "Views espoused by founders & organization scholars" be in the article? (initiated 22 October 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Snowden#added videos

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edward Snowden#added videos (initiated 16 October 2013; see the subsection at Talk:Edward Snowden#RfC: Should the links to the four Sam Adams Award videos be deleted?). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States#Inequality, tax incidence, and AP survey (initiated 1 December 2013)? See the subsection Talk:United States#Survey. WP:SNOW may be applicable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates (initiated 7 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I read through it all, but just got lost in the nuances of the various perspectives and proposals. It's probably a "no consensus", but I think I'll leave it to someone more clueful than I to close it : ) - jc37 18:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Putin#dictator and "American diplomatic cables" (initiated 9 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Young Justice (TV series)#RfC: Should a link to Young Justice Wiki be included? (initiated 28 October 2013)? Please see the 13:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC) comment by 74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs) at the bottom of the discussion: "...I suggest we bring in somebody uninvolved to close out the RfC, and determine if we have enough of a consensus, or not." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria (initiated 18 October 2013)? Please consider the previous RfCs Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission and Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC 2013 in your closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anita Sarkeesian#Merger proposal

Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus and close this merge discussion? Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_6#Category:Torpedo_bombers

Discussion stalled since 18 November. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 9#Category:Royal_lovers

Discussion stalled since 8 December. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alejandro García Padilla#Should we include graphs about Puerto Rico's economic behavior under the Governor's tenure? (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh#RfC: Content of the Lead

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Edinburgh#RfC: Content of the Lead (initiated 18 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote:

There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit") Archive 1, Archive 2 (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a recent AfD, and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at the deletion review. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to the use of Chinese characters in the article titles. Thanks!

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#RFC: Must every item listed in this comparison article have a Wikipedia article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools#RFC: Must every item listed in this comparison article have a Wikipedia article? (initiated 15 November 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Patriotic Nigras#RfC: Should the Patriotic Nigras Website link be included in the article? (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Wikipedia viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote:

This RfC [comes] after an unsuccessful AfD, an ELNO-based removal, a claim that the URL doesn't in fact reflect an official website, and an AN/I request) ...

An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ELNO-based removal). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2013#Request to switch to Module:Convert

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Convert/Archive December 2013#Request to switch to Module:Convert (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: "I propose we should migrate convert to use the module Module:Convert now, as it seems it's ready for prime time now. I understand this is a big switch, so please decide wisely." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources) (initiated 15 December 2013)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on for almost two weeks, to the point that it has even split into two sub-discussions. Would an uninvolved admin care to try to assess all this? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain (initiated 16 December 2013)? The last post was 19 December 2013. An uninvolved admin wrote:

Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue!

The opening poster has not repopulated the categories. Admin guidance would be helpful in determining whether the opening poster is allowed to undo the out-of-process category renaming based on the discussion's consensus which would prevent the opening poster from being accused of edit warring. Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Swdandap malfeasance

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Swdandap malfeasance (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822#Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED" (initiated 8 December 2013)? A participant wrote:

Would an uninvolved admin be able to close this discussion? StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers (initiated 23 November 2013)? The last comment was on 16 December 2013. The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:LGBT rights under international law#Duplicated text on countries' obligations under international law (initiated 3 September 2013)? At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Restoring (and then closing) a deleted RFC, the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC is restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#When nominations for awards is all there is

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#When nominations for awards is all there is (initiated 6 December 2013)? The proposal is for "removal of ANYBIO's and PORNBIO's references to mere nominations for awards as a sufficient criterion for a standalone article".

Please consider the previous related discussion Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO again (initiated 4 October 2013) in your close. My recommendation to the closer is to make the later section on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#When nominations for awards is all there is) a subsection of the earlier section about the dispute (Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#PORNBIO again). Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).

As an editor noted at the discussion:

For some history, this was discussed in an various extensive discussions and RfCs:

• November 2011
• December 2011
• March 2012
• July 2012
• January 2013

As asked for in the most recent edit to the guideline page, an uninvolved editor's closure is requested. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Petronilla of Aragon#Request for comment on main image

Would an experience editor assess the consensus at Talk:Petronilla_of_Aragon#Request_for_comment_on_main_image which was opened on Oct 9, 2013? The discussion is of moderate length and is in regard to a proposed photo and whether or not it is suitable for the article. Thank you, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#new sections including for organizations and places named for dates

The rfc template was removed, so the outcome must have been obvious, but two of us disagree on which way the result went. Could an uninvolved admin please formally close it? Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)