Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

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 17 October 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#Non-admin closure 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 talk:WikiProject Biography#RFC "Bias categories" and whether we can categorize people, groups, organizations, and media under them

(Initiated 1118 days ago on 25 October 2021) - could an independent, experienced editor close this? Thank you. --Mvbaron (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: should we add a wiki-link to article subsection President Trump's statements on the Unite the Right rally?

(Initiated 1118 days ago on 25 October 2021) - could an independent, experienced editor close this? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to it by five minutes. Was gonna make the same request. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: - did I only beat you because I restored the talk page section? starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Reckon so. I had forgotten about the RFC, until then. The talkpage at Trump is so darn active. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GEOnet Names Server (GNS)

(Initiated 1104 days ago on 8 November 2021) This RSN discussion has been archived without being closed. Due to the high impact of the source this deserves a formal close. FOARP (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm. Personally, I don't see that as closable, because the apparent consensus would lead to wide-ranging and impactful changes, and I don't think that discussion has sufficient participation to enact changes of that magnitude. Another closer might differ from me.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall - Didn't the same thing happen recently with GNIS, which is equally as prominent a source? Or if more participation is needed, then a re-list for another seven days might be a good idea? FOARP (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe advertise it on WP:CENT?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

For that it needs relisting (EDIT: to be clear, I have no idea to how to do this other than by cutting/pasting, which is normally a no-no in most of Wiki's systems). Either that or start a new one? But that seems likely to draw objections for having a new discussion so soon after the last one. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd agree with S Marshall that it should be CENT advertised for some period of time, perhaps also a note at WP:VPP. (noting, for the record, it was already advertised to Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)). "Some period of time" is undefined but if participation doesn't increase substantially I'd say one month, after which I'd say it's safe to say every reasonable effort was made to increase participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: The discussion has been relisted and removed from archive. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GEOnet Names Server (GNS). Isabelle ^🔔 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  I fixed the heading to reflect this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN § RfC: tghat.com

(Initiated 1091 days ago on 21 November 2021) RFC tag has expired. Requesting a close. Platonk (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory

(Initiated 1086 days ago on 26 November 2021) - could an uninvolved, experienced editor close this? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 10:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead

(Initiated 1086 days ago on 26 November 2021) This discussion is going on one week, and I wanted to bring up a suggestion that has been made on the talk page: a panel of administrator closers. This is a high profile, long, and complex RfC, and I think it justifies multiple administrators evaluating it for closure. ––FormalDude ^talk 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to wait for 30 days to expire. At that point we can see the status of the discussion. I am willing to serve as a closer and would not mind having a couple colleagues join in the process to ensure a thorough and fair result. Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• When it's time for the closure of this RfC I'd second this and also suggest that if not an administrative close, it certainly needs the hand of more than one experience closer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree on the need for multiple editors when closing this one, and apologize to the health and time of those that take up the task as starter of the RfC as I did not expect it to be such a complex question. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just don't close, until after the RFC-template expires. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think we'll need to necessarily wait thirty days. Time will tell though. Greatly appreciate any admins willing to volunteer to join a panel of closers for this. ––FormalDude ^talk 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW @FormalDude:, this closure request is in the wrong place. We're posting about an RFC, not WP:AN discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Corrected. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Also supporting a panel of three for this Rfc, which is likely to have a lasting influence well beyond this one article. I'd prefer at least one or two admins, but if it makes it any easier, I'd welcome very experienced non-admin closers who have deep command of policies and guidelines, and have demonstrated neutrality in controversial issues before, among the group of three. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Let it stay up for potentially more input; let's say 30 days. Also, I strongly support a panel of at least three closers, the majority of whom should be administrators, and all of whom should be both experienced and relatively uninvolved in such issues. As wrote, this is likely to have influence beyond the specific article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If a singular, uninvolved, and experienced non-admin wants to close, then they are fully within the rights, and I would support their decision to do so; we should not be dictating the requirements for a closer beyond what is required by policy, particularly for an RfC which will have limited impact despite the unusually high level of attention it is receiving. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• At a skim I'm not sure its implications are actually that global. If I were closing it I'd go for a narrow closure applicable only to this specific article, as the question (and comments) are also specific to this article and its subject, and hence the RfC result is not necessarily applicable to a different BLP. I'm sure its result may be invoked as precedent in future cases where a BLP subject has a similar background/context to JKR, but editors would still have to consider the context to decide whether the result even applies in the first place; for example, DUEness (a popular argument in that RfC) varies depending on the specific case, what's DUE in one article may not be in another (and vice versa). Probably not going to close it myself, in deference to the number of editors who have requested that it be a panel, although I don't really see the case for a panel closure here. Agree the full 30 day period should run, regardless. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the case for a panel is (1) to lend legitimacy to the close of an unusually contentious discussion and (2) to ensure that the weight given to various factors (e.g., number of !votes, policy-based arguments, and sources) reflects community consensus rather than one admin's opinion. That weight aspect might have some relevance outside the particular article, though I don't deem it likely for the close to articulate principles that could be applied directly in other instances. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    I'm generally wary about having panel closes becoming too prevalent. There are definitely times when they're useful (I'd say DM1 and DM2 are good examples), but most decisions (including very influential ones) have been made by consensus and closed by single editors (or sometimes even no editor; a lot of PAGs never formally went through "RfC" and closure). Panel closes are not only more logistically difficult and thus delay discussion closure, but also kinda move away from the general precedent. I agree with the general concern that a close should reflect community consensus and not an individual closers' opinion, but I think this applies to all closes, and in general we usually do get it right (experienced editors have a good idea for which discussions they have an opinion about or are unsuitable closers for, and hence don't close them; and WP:AN reviews the exceptions) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    My sense is that this would be very likely to head to AN if given an "average" Admin close, but can't see that happening if a panel does the job. That would be my pragmatic argument for a panel: heading off some of the most likely outcomes that would be negative for the community. On the other hand, I don't see any negatives that would accrue from the slower resolution inherent in a panel. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    In solid agreement with Newimpartial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• When the RFC template expires (i.e. removed by legobot), a single editor (preferable an administrator) can close the RFC. So far, a panel isn't mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  A number of editors, some of whom have participated in that RfC, have submitted a solid reasoning for asking for more than one editor to close it down. To treat this as a "routine" RfC would be wrong, especially having in mind the many contentious arguments in Wikipedia about subjects related to the rights of trans persons. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  But if a single editor were to close the RfC, especially an inexperienced one, just imagine the potential for future dwama!!! Oh my! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  There does seem to be a consensus of editors wishing for a panel closure. Unilateral closure is clearly inadvisable. When 30 days passes, I think a notification should be made to WP:AN to request volunteers for said panel (it's a better venue than here for that purpose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support request for closure for a majority-admin and fully experienced panel of three, after a minimum of 30 days has passed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• I just hope however it's closed, there'll be no protesting over the result. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's why to wait the full 30 days and use a panel of closers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yikes that's big. It should run the full 30 days to ensure no one complains about process. I agree with PR above about panel closures, so I would recommend this just be closed by a single person. It's a big discussion but nothing that a single person can't handle. Panels are usually a waste of time except in cases like WP:RFA2021 or WP:AHRFC where there are multiple proposals that can be split between closers before coming back to summarize the whole thing. Forcing two or three people to read the whole thing just isn't a good use of time; better to just handle problems at AN (or the new WP:XRV) in the unlikely event the closer you find does a bad job. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Wugapodes on all of those counts, and, we don't want discussion participants specifying how the close will be made. Closing that looks like a bitter, tedious chore with a near-certainty of drama directed at you whatever the outcome and I would anticipate a lack of volunteers to do it.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing time

The moment has arrived, the RFC tag has expired. May we have a decision on the RFC in question. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Sumerian King List#RfC on including/excluding the full list of kings

(Initiated 1080 days ago on 2 December 2021) This RfC is not going anywhere; no new editors are joining in and no one is convincing anyone to "change sides", and has devolved into reiterating the same arguments over and over and questioning the competence and good faith of the opposing side. Just counting the votes it is pretty clearly a no consensus result but I'm requesting closure because as I understand it discussions are not determined only by votes (so an uninvolved and experienced editor reading through would be good) and since in this case the RfC is on whether a table that was removed six months ago should be added back a closer is also needed to determine what the status quo to be maintained actually is in the case of no consensus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:List of presidents of the United States § Request for comment: sortability, scope metadata, order § 2: Scope metadata

(Initiated 1073 days ago on 9 December 2021) This is one part of a multi-part RfC, and I'm only requesting closure of this part (question 2). It has a rather obvious result, with a 14–1 tally of !votes. It's becoming a pile-on, and more comments probably won't change anything. I'd close it myself, but I opened the RfC and commented in it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol:  Done. starship.paint (exalt) 10:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	6	8
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	6	42	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Guy Standing (economist)#Extended confirm protection too much?

(Initiated 1165 days ago on 7 September 2021) Discussion that needs closing, possibly by an administrator if the consensus is to unprotect the article. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Waukesha parade attack

(Initiated 1083 days ago on 29 November 2021) – Title of this section was Talk:Waukesha_parade_attack#Move_from_Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC) – Please review (that discussion) --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, the initial discussion subject to the move review has been archived here and the link you have given to the TP is to a subsequent discussion. A close is requested for the move review. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

To editor Cinderella157: yes thank you, that is correct. It was that subsequent discussion that was originally brought here to WP:CR to be closed. The collapsed discussion below hopefully explains what inspired the header change of this section from the subsequent discussion to the move review. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 05:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Talk:Waukesha parade attack#Move from Waukesha Christmas parade attack

(Initiated 1084 days ago on 28 November 2021)

Previous discussion

Anyone considering closing this should consider, or at least be aware of, Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_November#Waukesha_parade_attack. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC) In addition to running concurrent with the MR above, this was not a validly formatted RM or RfC (not tagged) and thus should not be closed IMO. Levivich 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Reply - We can wait until one week after the Move Review was started, but this discussion can be closed after that, as it discusses the article title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC) The linked talk page discussion isn't tagged so it can't result in consensus to move. It needs to be run as a proper RM and advertised as such for a week, then it can be closed. Levivich 23:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Reply - Fair enough, then we can close the move request tomorrow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC) It needs to be tagged for a week. That means listed on the RM list and a template on the article page. You know, standard WP:RM procedure. So this talk page discussion is a pre-RM discussion and doesn't need closure. What needs to happen is for the pending move review to close, and then, if applicable, a new RM. I believe this page has never had an actual full RM; all attempted RMs have been interrupted by page moves during the RM. There should be one, full, proper, uninterrupted RM... followed by a moratorium for a reasonable period (months). IMO :-) Levivich 00:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Reply - I could not agree with you more. Sorry that I erred, I meant to say move review, not move request. Tomorrow will be one week since the move review was started, at which time, the move review can be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry too, I think I misread your earlier comments. Glad we're on the same page :-) Levivich 01:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• To avoid inconsistent results, and to avoid further wastage of time and effort, please close Talk:Waukesha_parade_attack#Move_from_Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack first, and depending on how that goes, Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Waukesha parade attack may be rendered moot. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I suggest the closing admin read both discussions and form their own view as to the order in which they should be closed. Havelock Jones (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I second Jones' request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  We’re not voting here. This is the third parallel discussion you’ve instigated. The discussions should be closed in order oldest first. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reply - I started the move review to provide official visibility to the discussions, and submitted a request here to provide official closure. I would be more than happy to see this discussion and the others ended sooner rather than later. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use

(Initiated 1081 days ago on 1 December 2021) I wonder whether a closure is necessary. If a bot archives the discussion before closing, then closure would be taken as not necessary. Right? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't entirely expected but I think we're making some progress again. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:High-dynamic-range imaging#Requested move 18 December 2021

(Initiated 1063 days ago on 18 December 2021) – Can someone close the requested move as no one has objected and I believe I gave some strong arguments ? Thanks. My final opinion goes toward "HDR capture from multiple exposures". SH4ever (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm only asking the closer to reject the current title, as there might be some good arguments for multiple options. (WP:OTHEROPTIONS). SH4ever (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Waukesha_parade_attack#Requested_move_26_December_2021

Should this Requested move be opened while a move review is actually taking place? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn by nominator. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done for bot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)