Wikipedia:Closure requests

The Closure requests 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 appears 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.

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 30 April 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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 from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, 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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jewish Chronicle

(Initiated 1174 days ago on 13 March 2021) - Discussion has concluded (I've just restored it from the archive) but would benefit from formal closure and, possibly, a listing at WP:RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion has continued in a significant way after the discussion was restored. I am waiting before considering a close here (and am tagging not to archive before the end of the month). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	9	20	29
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	4	4
RfD	0	0	4	28	32
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 2#Birth name again

(Initiated 1742 days ago on 22 August 2019) (even earlier, considering the original round of discussion; poll per se opened 30 January 2021; and continuing to present in a forked thread). This discussion, technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag, has languished about a year and and half, with considerable controversy (especially Jan.–Mar. of this year), but has now archived without resolution. It has since spawned a rehash thread at Talk:Sophie (musician)#Birth name yet again, but this is clearly not going to produce the kind of clear poll the last discussion did. This needs assessment and closure, or it's just never going to end. The key issue is that some parties have latched onto the following from WP:BDP as an excuse to suppress the birth name of a dead person:

The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.

It seems dubious that these conditions are met in this case (and "can" certainly does not mean "must"), though that's up to the closure assessor, I guess. Importantly, we just recently had a very lengthy series of RfCs at WT:MOSBIO (still visible atop that page) which resulted in major revisions to MOS:DEADNAME, and the relevant portions have tightened, not loosened, in this regard; i.e., they are taken to apply strictly to living persons, not to dead ones, including recently deceased ones. These changes overlapped the un-RfC at this article, and despite the lack of a clear closure of that un-RfC, the name has continued to be suppressed in this article, without a clear consensus or WP:P&G basis to do so.

Given that the archived discussion has WP:TALKFORKed / WP:MULTIed a new thread, I think it would be wise to un-archive this one and then close it, and leave it to be re-archived automatically over time, and also mark the other thread closed as a redundant and moot discussion fork.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 177#Convert all English variant notices to editnotices

(Initiated 1236 days ago on 10 January 2021) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

As a quick note, the way I read the discussion (with the heavy disclaimer that I am the proposer) is that there were some consensuses (or at least communal sentiments) reached that went beyond the specific original proposal. I would appreciate it if the closer could assess with an eye toward how this discussion should guide future efforts at reforming English variant notices, rather than just giving a straight adopted/not adopted result. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Generally agree with Sdkb on that. At this point, the proposal (technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag) has archived without closure, and this is not good, since the issue is going to continue to result in squabbling if not settled.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I have restored it from the archive and added the "do not archive" template. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese Communist Party#Question on Controversy section

(Initiated 1204 days ago on 10 February 2021) I was involved in the discussion, though it's very close. The discussion largely focused on whether to keep a "controversy" section within the page for Chinese Communist Party or whether it would be better to split it off into its own article. There has not been discussion in over a month. If an experienced editor could take a look and provide closure, it would be helpful for moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:RuPaul's_Drag_Race_UK_(series_2)#All_options,_redux

(Initiated 1180 days ago on 7 March 2021) - An experienced editor familiar with policies is invited to close this well attended (but slightly disrupted) discussion and determine if there is consensus for any of the presented options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 March#Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia

(Initiated 1159 days ago on 27 March 2021) – Please close this move review discussion. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:State_v._Chauvin#Death_VS_Killing

(Initiated 1154 days ago on 2 April 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)