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.

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 14 August 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 an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

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.

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.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

RfCs

Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Alternative medicine sidebar#Title of template (Initiated 2816 days ago on 28 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I recommend an admin take this one. There is a clear lean to the numbers, but this has a wide impact, strong views, and it warrants very careful consideration of the arguments and the effect. Alsee (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Defining cosmetic changes (Initiated 2814 days ago on 30 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

(Initiated 2806 days ago on 6 January 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC on Earthquake prediction

Experienced and uninvolved editor requested to evaluate this RfC (Initiated 2805 days ago on 7 January 2017). Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a try for a closure by an involved editor, which I have reverted, as he himself has been the reason for this RFC.--85.74.33.233 (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there was. But this anon. ip. left out some essential information. The RfC was opened 7 Jan. by JerryRussell regarding some issues being pushed by this anonymous WP:SPA editor from Athens (self-identified as "AA", currently from the IP address 85.74.33.233). It was poorly formulated, and after a first round of drive-by opinions the discussions tended to flounder; there has been no substantive discussion since 1 Feb. The RfC expired on 7 Feb, and Jerry requested a close on the 10th, but there has been absolutely no action or discussion on the RfC since then. Jerry has been absent since the 10th, and as no one else seems interested I attempted to close it yesterday with a minimal summary that, aside from "Question #6", there is no clear consensus either way. However, "AA" objects (perhaps because Question #6 bears on "balancing" material he wanted to add), and he reverted, with the bare comment "involved editor". I restored, noting that no uninvolved editors have stepped up, which he reverted as "vandalism of the process", and there we are.

Would someone (preferably without an ax to grind) please step up and put this RfC out of its misery? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)#RfC: Assassin or not?

This RfC (Initiated 2809 days ago on 3 January 2017) finished after 30 days of discussion, and I have now closed it to prevent the discussion from overrunning. This was merely a housekeeping closure; I have not determined a result, so I would like an administrator to override my closure with a result. Thank you. Linguist^talk|contribs 14:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award (Initiated 2807 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bronze Wolf Award#Request for comment on whether the Bronze Wolf Award by itself is enough to show notability of holders of the award ? Thanks, --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#RFC on using "ancient Greek kingdom" instead of just "ancient kingdom" in the lead section (Initiated 2807 days ago on 6 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Multi-part RFC on Wikipedia:Recent years (Initiated 2800 days ago on 13 January 2017)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox unit#RfC: capitalization rule for name parameter (Initiated 2805 days ago on 8 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Workshopping an RfC on the inactivity policy (Initiated 2817 days ago on 27 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Fake news website#RfC: merges of related pages

A close here would be good as the articles in question are high-traffic. (Initiated 2788 days ago on 25 January 2017) 121.218.198.209 (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Hyphen in titles of articles on railways of a narrow gauge

This RFC (Initiated 2777 days ago on 4 February 2017) has run more than 3 weeks and has been quiet for a while. Needs a close. Dicklyon (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#RFC on including Russian influence into the election

This RFC (Initiated 2797 days ago on 15 January 2017) needs a close. Thank youCasprings (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly assess the consensus there? Thanks, — JFG ^talk 03:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to submit blockers on replacing our wikitext editor

The uninvolved closer is needed to evaluate the consensus. (Initiated 2796 days ago on 16 January 2017) George Ho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC on G13

This discussion (Initiated 2792 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Should the AfC process be scrapped altogether (while retaining the draft namespace)?

This discussion (Initiated 2790 days ago on 22 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --George Ho (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Request for comment: Use of interlanguage links in Wikipedia templates

This discussion (Initiated 2792 days ago on 20 January 2017) also needs an uninvolved closer. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC

Would an experienced and uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#RFC? (Initiated 2790 days ago on 23 January 2017)? It would also be advised to take the subsequent discussion, Talk:2017 World Rally Championship#Top-level article into account when closing this one, as the RFC participants posted contributions relevant to the RFC question in that discussion as well. Thanks, Tvx1 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Katherine Johnson#RfC: Should we use her maiden name for some parts of the article and her married name for other parts of the article?

This RfC (Initiated 2787 days ago on 25 January 2017) recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Melania Trump#RfC: Photo

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melania Trump#RfC: Photo (Initiated 2792 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Timothy Winter#Request for comment on "controversies" section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Timothy Winter#Request for comment on "controversies" section (Initiated 2792 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Brady#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tom Brady#RfC: Should the lead mention Deflategate? (Initiated 2787 days ago on 26 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire#RfC Laissez-faire link

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Empire#RfC Laissez-faire link (Initiated 2796 days ago on 17 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nissan Caravan#Useless dab tags

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nissan Caravan#Useless dab tags (Initiated 2799 days ago on 14 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump#RFC - Address significant content overlap

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political appointments of Donald Trump#RFC - Address significant content overlap (Initiated 2792 days ago on 21 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing (Initiated 2794 days ago on 19 January 2017) and Talk:James O'Keefe#RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration (Initiated 2793 days ago on 20 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#RFC on WP:RESTRICT (Initiated 2788 days ago on 25 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 2786 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1 (Initiated 2784 days ago on 29 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion as part of the overall RfC Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (the above listing). Thanks for any help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?

Could some brave admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian? (Initiated 2809 days ago on 4 January 2017)? One editor tried to close it, but it was reopened, hope we can finally close it soon, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a note to the closing admin, when you do close, you should make sure that you specify that it's only for the specific page, a multipage RFC can't be dealt with at one article's talk page. It needs to be in a central location and prominently advertised. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure

The backlog has been growing again, currently some 150 open discussions, the oldest is almost two months old. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• The backlog has now decreassed to just over 100 open discussions, thanks to User:BrownHairedGirl's recent efforts. Regardless of this, it's pretty important that more admins should regularly close discussions here. Without further admin involvement, we'll be back at 150 in two weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Marcocapelle. There is a longstanding need for more admins to undertake this task regularly, and it now seems to be getting critical. BU Rob13 became an admin about a year and did great work closing many discussions, but has now stepped down as an admin, leaving a big gap. Rob's contribution was v welcome, but Marcocapelle is right that we need multiple more admins to help out.
    I have been thinking about how to persuade admins more to help, and my best idea so far is to routinely add CFD-close questions to WP:RFA candidates. They are already closely questioned on AFD closures, which ensures that new admins are usually up-to-speed on that. It seems to me that doing the same thing for CFD would encourage more new admins to learn CFD before putting themselves forward, and also maybe tempt some existing admins to join in.
    Any thoughts on that idea? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @BrownHairedGirl: I doubt that would convince candidates to jump in or convince experienced admins to try their hand at CfD. Instead, it's likely to cause more people to fail RfA ("You don't know WP:OVERCAT? Clearly needs more polish!" despite not wanting to work in CFD). Personally, I see the way forward as a combination of promoting from within (Marcocapelle would qualify for admin if he wanted it) and being more consistent in our activity (when we go a week without closing a discussion, it's hard to catch up. If all active closers close two discussions a day, it's easy.) Unfortunately, the paid editing/outing situation has caused me to largely withdraw from admin areas, so I won't be of much help. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: good points. Will you help me try to persuade Marcocapelle to accept an RFA nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        • :-) User:Fayenatic london tried that as well. Most importantly it wouldn't solve the problem because I'm already closing discussions and we need other people to join. Second, I would surely not pass the exams to become an admin since I'm only active in categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Marcocapelle, I don't know whether having the tools is useful at CfD, but looking at your contributions history, yes, you'd probably struggle to pass at RfA at this time. But that could be helped by you creating a handful of decent articles. Once done, you could check things out via WP:ORCP. You may be closer to it than you think. If that could be of interest to you, let's take this discussion to your talk page. Schwede66 08:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 136#Use of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner on articles (Initiated 2814 days ago on 30 December 2016) (using the date from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner due to the close relationship between the two discussions)? Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not a RfC and does not need closing. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Sidebar. That will close as a SNOW keep. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The MfD you mention is about the sidebar, while the village pump discussion is about the banner. It wasn't originally listed in the RfC section; it has been moved twice. A closure is needed and overdue.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Both are the same thing but they have a different look. The new one can be put towards the bottom of the page. What we need is a bot to add it to all medical pages. Medpedia sounds better than Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No, there is definitely not consensus for that, considering the banner page was explicitly prohibited from being used on articles by its mfd. Pppery 02:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The mfd did not prohibit its use in articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The mfd decreed a condition (i.e. "not to be inserted into articles without obtaining consensus to do so") for its use that was never met. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There is consensus. The new sidebar may replace the banner for articles. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 9#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate has been relisted several times already (originally nominated on 21 December 2016) and no new arguments have been added since 21 February and needs closing. Full disclosure: I am very involved with this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Beheading in Islam#Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

Can an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 19:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog

Close to 60 in backlog and elapsed. Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Far-left politics in the United Kingdom#Redirect proposal

Needs an uninvolved party to close the discussion. (Initiated 2780 days ago on 1 February 2017) --George Ho (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:RSN: Colin Heaton's biography of Hans-Joachim Marseille

Would appreciate a formal close by an uninvolved editor or administrator. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)