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, 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 28 July 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 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 the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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 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.

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. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, 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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting RfC be re-closed

(Initiated 1362 days ago on 4 December 2020) This would better be closed by an admin familiar with IRANPOL. The discussion has received feedback from multiple experienced admins/editors. Specially, there's a determining suggestion of 'source restriction' which needs to be considered as a part of the discussion. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about a RfC, which received consensus in November 29, but Mhhossein keeps re-opening the conversation at AN even though it has been closed several times for lack of participation (and adding a code to it so that it won't be closed until 2030!)

About source restriction, an editor suggested this was something that goes beyond this RFC:

"I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice)."

Another editor opened a discussion on this at the article's talk page, with very little comments from everyone (including Mhhossein). Mhhossein does not seem to want to accept the consensus of this RfC even though almost all the participants in the RFC agreed the best thing to do was to significantly reduce the text of a section in the article. Also most editors and admins at AN endorsed the close. Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Idealigic: Why are you bludgeoning the process again? Why are you saying these things here? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I am not bludgeoning, I'm explaining that your comment about 'source restriction' was a suggestion by an editor who said this could be implemented by an admin to the entire People's Mujahedin of Iran article or IRANPOL areas, and not to one single sentence in a RFC (which would be a very biased way of editing the article, something also others said at AN). You forgot to explain that part. Idealigic (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's pure bludgeoning (probably you'll need to be taken to ANI for continued behavior of bludgeoning). By the way, Levivich showed how the YOU were failing to realize what 'source restriction' is. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Noah Oppenheim#Request for Comment Noah Oppenheim

(Initiated 1378 days ago on 18 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review and close? BC1278 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Germans#Rfc for due weight regarding the ethnic vs. nationality meaning of "Germans"

(Initiated 1361 days ago on 5 December 2020) This Rfc ended a few days ago and followed lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Talk:Germans. Because of the divisiveness of the issue and the polarized (and at times tense) nature of the discussion, the Rfc would probably be best closed by an administrator. --Tserton (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Atintanians#RfC regarding the lede

(Initiated 1359 days ago on 7 December 2020) Has been open since December 7 2020. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: Use of deadname in quotes

(Initiated 1358 days ago on 8 December 2020) Related to the one above, difficult close with high attendance and not much activity for the last week. — Bilorv (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the 2nd half the RfC above; there's just one RfC tag.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Given that I just closed the other RFC on deadnaming, I got very familar with the issues and had to come up with a method to deal with the giant yarn ball of opinions. I can probably do the same for this RFC; I will just need a day or two to recharge my personal and laptop batteries. -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: What to do with category links to Commons?

(Initiated 1354 days ago on 12 December 2020) Controversial topic, will need a proper closing when the time comes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Newsmax#Proposed merge (Newsmax TV to Newsmax)

(Initiated 1353 days ago on 13 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax TV to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:R to project namespace#RfC: Should we categorize redirects to the same namespace?

(Initiated 1342 days ago on 24 December 2020) (larger thread ongoing since 1 December 2020, reopened after December 2019 – February 2020 discussion, itself continuation from February–May 2016. This RfC (which was broadly advertised to pretty much every potentially relevant talk page) was closed recently as WP:SNOW. The sole contrarian voice has insisted on reopening it, but does not seem to be presenting a new argument, just displeasure, so I think the close should be restored. (Indeed, that person's argument is basically to just refer to previous discussions where they made the same arguments before.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality

(Initiated 1341 days ago on 25 December 2020) – Related discussions, most of them leading up to the RfC, mainly at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Swiss-Radio-and-TV "outing" of Chopin (and some subsequent sections on that talk page); and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200#Frédéric Chopin. Uninvolved closure seems necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Smerus initiates these actions, because the new article Sexuality of Chopin seriously compromises this particular RfC. Smerus has made the most edits to Frédéric Chopin and was responsible for bringing the article to WP:FA status. So far there seems to be consensus amongst User:Smerus, User:Nihil novi, User:Toccata quarta, User:Kosboot, User:JackofOz, User:SPECIFICO, User:Darwinek, user:Piotrus, user:Aza24 and me. I suggest an experienced administrator. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am not sure that I should initiate anything in this matter, given the apparent hostility towards me of some of the editors contributing to the discussion. Isn't this a matter for the consideration of @Robert McClenon: who is i/c the RfC? I agree that the involvement of a senior administrator would be helpful.--Smerus (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken, Mathsci, and Smerus: - Well, first, I am hardly in charge of the RFC, as if anyone was in charge of it. I was merely trying to find a way to spread the unhappiness evenly. My own opinion is:

• • • The discussion of this topic should be moved to the main section of WP:AN.
    • The creation of the sub-article Sexuality of Chopin was an end run around the RFC, and I would rather see an end run in American football than in Wikipedia.
    • However, now that the sub-article has been created, either the sub-article should be deleted or merged into the main article, or any issues should be addressed in the sub-article.
    • The RFC is moot if the sub-article is kept.
    • If the sub-article is merged or deleted, an administrator should close the RFC.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Re. suggestion to move to AN: disagree – the RfC can be closed without splitting the same discussion over multiple pages.
• Re. end run: the existence or non-existence of a sub-article is unrelated to the RfC.
• Re. "either the sub-article should be deleted or merged into the main article, or any issues should be addressed in the sub-article" – no, the RfC decides on what goes in the main article, irrespective of the existence of a sub-article.
• Re. RfC becoming moot after creation of sub-article: no, that suggestion makes no sense.
• Re. conditions on close of the RfC: no, again, the suggestion of such conditions makes no sense.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: end run, yes, the POV fork is an end run around the RfC. The RfC was always intended to be about how the matter is covered in Wikipedia; claiming it only applies to material under a specific title is WP:WIKILAWYERing. IMO an admin should G6 delete the fork or protect it as a redirect as a violation of dispute resolution procedures. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I support the opinion of Crossroads in this matter.--Smerus (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The irritating thing about modifying RfCs after creation is that it makes it difficult to see how much support there is for a certain option, because most don't revisit a discussion. A "remove entirely" option should've been part of the original RfC. At least one editor who voted for an option to retain the content originally changed their vote to the option F afterwards. After F was added, there was a notable % of support for that option. It's thus harder to determine, purely from the survey, a consensus on whether the content should be in the article imo. Possibly a more dedicated closer will be willing to read through all the threaded discussion and parse intentions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have tagged the redirect as a Redirect for Discussion and am recommending that it be fully protected. However, if the community thinks, in the RFD discussion, that the sub-article should exist, that is a valid result of the RFD also. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have adopted the suggestion of Robert McClenon and raised the closure of the RfC at Administrators' notice board.--Smerus (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Gary Young#RfC: does this lead reflect the body of the article?

(Initiated 1338 days ago on 28 December 2020) No consensus reached, but some policy oversight needed. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note: There is also an older RfC on the same talk page that is also ripe for closure, Talk:Donald Gary Young#RfC: worker killed by pressure device designed by Young. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2021_in_heavy_metal_music#RfC_about_Gemini_Syndrome

(Initiated 1336 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Luke Letlow#RfC on infobox template

(Initiated 1336 days ago on 30 December 2020) Discussion has died down, but consensus is unclear. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Needle Drop

(Initiated 1332 days ago on 3 January 2021) Difficult close, relatively evenly split on votes, slightly favouring inclusion, but there are other issues that need to be taken into account, like whether or not they are a reliable source. Close has been requested by another user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#RfC_-_The_Raw_Story

(Initiated 1326 days ago on 9 January 2021) It had clear-cut responses, so I think it's not a hard one. It would nice if someone closed this.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Brexit Party#RfC regarding article split

(Initiated 1325 days ago on 10 January 2021) Consensus appears to be leaning towards one article, but there is an added complication in whether the article itself should be renamed. — Czello 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score

(Initiated 1320 days ago on 15 January 2021) Requesting closure on the discussion to add OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score to Video Game Manual of Style on Reception sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Tendentious_editing#RFC:_POVFIGHTER

(Initiated 1319 days ago on 16 January 2021) Last !vote was 9 days ago. One side has a preponderance of !votes but consensus has been disputed so I've been advised to seek an uninvolved closer here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I closed it. I am not uninvolved but I did close against my own position because of the clear consensus. I don't think anyone is really disputing the consensus at this point. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted Loki's close, as s/he was the initiator of the RfC. Really we need a totally uninvolved editor, and perhaps wait the customary 30 days. No deadline and whatnot… — JFG ^talk 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#RfC_on_infoboxes_for_two-round_elections

(Initiated 1315 days ago on 20 January 2021) Discussion has died down for over a week and consensus is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glide08 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	0	4	4
TfD	0	0	1	5	6
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	3	74	77
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 174#Move good/featured article topicons next to article name

(Initiated 1421 days ago on 6 October 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this usability-related discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Template talk:Self-reference#Requested move 28 October 2020

(Initiated 1399 days ago on 28 October 2020) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Spitting_Image#Merger_proposal

(Initiated 1396 days ago on 31 October 2020) This one has been lingering for awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 November#John Boyd (footballer, born 1929)

(Initiated 1381 days ago on 15 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:COSCO Shipping#Proposed merge of COSCO Shipping Holdings into COSCO Shipping

(Initiated 1347 days ago on 19 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of a listed company that have high overlap with its parent company. Matthew hk (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Matthew hk:, you are free to implement. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Military of Hong Kong#Restored the redirect

(Initiated 1342 days ago on 24 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to determine the consensus of this thread, which apparently flooded by ip due to suspected off-site canvassing. Matthew hk (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: First of all the article was turned into a redirect with no discussion, so the default position or most recent stable version would be the article itself rather than the redirect. Secondly Matthew hk struck out many remarks without submitting any evidence that there was off-site canvassing, nor was the SPIs he submitted conclusive ones. The talk page was also locked without any request formally submitted, btw. Please note. Thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• For admin and other closer. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK. Matthew hk (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Chetnik war crimes in World War II#Genocide question

(Initiated 1341 days ago on 25 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor or admin to close this RfC. Discussion is about whether or not to emphasize throughout the article that there isn't a consensus on whether the Chetniks engaged in genocide. --Griboski (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Article size split

(Initiated 1339 days ago on 27 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date

(Initiated 1338 days ago on 28 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be POV pushing on these RfCs (multiple RfCs running at the same time, meandering proposals in the RfCs, etc). It would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look. Quite a political topic that both pro-china and pro-hong kong editors I would guess are involved in. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't even saw any rfc tag..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's probably why it's under "Other types of closing requests" and not under "Requests for comment". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If it not a Rfc. Don't claim it as one. Since it did not even tagged as a Rfc, then people running a lot of Rfc to running out the commenting quota from those editors with RfC quota, does not affect this thread : Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date . Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply - @Matthew hk:, thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:All Ghillied Up#Concerns on this article's notability

(Initiated 1337 days ago on 29 December 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this? Thanks. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:National Institute of Technology, Rourkela#Proposed merge of Monday Morning (newsletter) into National Institute of Technology, Rourkela

(Initiated 1336 days ago on 30 December 2020) The last post in this merge discussion was a while back, so could someone take a look at it with a view to closing? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Parler#Part_of_a_series_on_Antisemitism

(Initiated 1326 days ago on 9 January 2021). This is about whether to include an antisemitism themed sidebar in the Parler app article. - Daveout(talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Lead sentence proposal

(Initiated 1314 days ago on 21 January 2021) Discussion has been quite lengthy and many proposals have been put forward, making consensus difficult to determine. A formal closure by an uninvolved user is necessary. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)