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 24 May 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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sander.v.Ginkel

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sander.v.Ginkel (Initiated 2321 days ago on 14 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

RfCs

Template_talk:Infobox_venue#Tenants_field

(Initiated 2355 days ago on 11 January 2018) Would an experienced editor (ideally someone with template editor rights as the page is template protected) assess the consensus at Template_talk:Infobox_venue#Tenants_field please? Iffy★Chat -- 12:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Abkhazia#New RFC

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#New RFC (Initiated 2354 days ago on 12 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed date, is initiated 12 january 2018 Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)#RfC - Wolfe on cancer

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)#RfC - Wolfe on cancer (Initiated 2349 days ago on 17 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Carolina Nairne#WP:LASTNAME

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Carolina Nairne#WP:LASTNAME (Initiated 2349 days ago on 17 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can we clarify what does and does not constitute 'strong national ties'?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Can we clarify what does and does not constitute 'strong national ties'? (Initiated 2348 days ago on 18 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2018 in science#RfC about sources for new entries

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 in science#RfC about sources for new entries (Initiated 2347 days ago on 19 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Seth MacFarlane#Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Seth MacFarlane#Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018 (Initiated 2343 days ago on 23 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative for Germany#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative for Germany#Request for comment (Initiated 2343 days ago on 23 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Coachella Valley Church#RfC about the neutrality of this article

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Coachella Valley Church#RfC about the neutrality of this article (Initiated 2343 days ago on 23 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on use of "crore"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on use of "crore" (Initiated 2342 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done. Discussion on this matter still ongoing. The latest comment in this thread is dated 19:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC). I'd wait at least another week on this to be sure the discussion has actually concluded. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed not done template since the bot archives the discussion if thet template is present. I'm fine with waiting a week before assessing the consensus. I've restored this close request from the archive to this board as it can be easily forgotten if it is moved to the archives. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Request For Comment about ranking charts on music articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Request For Comment about ranking charts on music articles (Initiated 2342 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Satanic Temple#RfC regarding Disambiguation

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Satanic Temple#RfC regarding Disambiguation (Initiated 2342 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_decision_to_let_Weinstein_story_go

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_decision_to_let_Weinstein_story_go (Initiated 2337 days ago on 29 January 2018)? Thanks,BC1278 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Criteria for inclusion in Births and Deaths sections of Wikipedia date articles

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Criteria for inclusion in Births and Deaths sections of Wikipedia date articles (Initiated 2338 days ago on 28 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 135#Worldwide (WW) release date in infobox

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 135#Worldwide (WW) release date in infobox (Initiated 2335 days ago on 31 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? (Initiated 2334 days ago on 1 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, this has been moved to the archive already - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_141#RFC:_Is_“(anime)”_a_suitable_disambiguator?. No comments in several days. Still needs a closing statement though. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations#Proposed Merge

(Initiated 2324 days ago on 10 February 2018) This has been going for two weeks and folks have stopped !voting. [redacted stupidity] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• [redacted stupidity] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)requests for closure are preferred to be neutrally worded.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm...@MjolnirPants:--I don't think that a snow-call is highly-appropriate in the circumstances and it might be better to wait for a few more days to evaluate the stagnation of the discussion and/or new participation.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a snow close; If you check the page, I explicitly denied the possibility of a snow close. But it's still quite an obvious close, and folks seem to have stopped !voting (the last one was almost four days ago). By the way, next time I make commentary like that, you may feel free to treat it the same exact way I did with this edit, though your method was rather more considerate. I'd have split it up myself (and posted it as a comment near the end of the RfC, instead of here) except I'm tired and therefore, temporarily stupid. At least I hope it's temporary... <cue the ominous music> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: It's been 4 more days without any !votes or even commentary. The last !vote was a week ago, do you think that's long enough? (Serious question; I'm not being at all sarcastic and will defer to your judgement here.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. We need closure so we can move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done O3000 (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section? This RfC was only opened two days ago (by myself), but I feel the consensus is so overwhelming that I am justified in seeking to have this discussion closed so that we can move on. (Initiated 2307 days ago on 28 February 2018) L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Objection. The person making the request is the person who started the RfC. I have not participated in it, myself -- because I think it is not a valid RfC. We are asked to choose between two versions selected by the OP; why does that individual get to determine the choices open to other editors? I agree the RfC can be closed -- on grounds of being invalid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A: I’m entitled to request closure (unless someone can point to a policy I’m not familiar with that proves otherwise).

B: I don’t even understand the second objection. RfCs usually present two options, and you are welcome to suggest alternatives, as indeed people have. You don’t have to support either option. This has already been explained to you by another user on the article talk page. What must an RfC consist of to be valid, in your terms? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Inactivity policy for administrators

Open since Feb 4. This is an easy one, consensus is prety clear, but would change policy so a formal close from an uninvolved user is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School#History

Editors are debating a smallish proposed addition to the History section. We would appreciate a Close from an uninvolved editor.– Lionel^(talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

collapsing per "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." Any extra comments should be made at the discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no RFC there, and there is still nothing resembling a consensus. OP has again revert warned on his false notion of consensus and again the article is at RFPP. And his "we" above can only be construed as a royal we, as there was 0 discussion of closing or requesting an administrator's assistance in assessing consensus. John from Idegon (talk) 07:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC) I would say that Lionelt's is the better description of the situation. Jzsj (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC) As John from Idegon said, there was no RfC regarding the History section of the article. No RfC = no closure needed. Jzsj has apparently confused WP:CANVASSING with WP:RFC. 32.218.152.99 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Other discussions can also be closed, if needed. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC) In fact there is no RFC at all. It is just another trick to turn the article in one big advertising piece, against the prevailing consensus. Extra people have been drummed up by canvassing. The article has been protected a few times now, due to the disruptive editing of both Lionelt and jzsj. Ow, and Lionelt claims proposal 4, with a vote of 3-3 should be the winning proposal. In fact, proposal 3, with a 3-0 vote is votewise the winning proposal. A boomerang should be nice now as the only thing that is happening is restarting the discussion every time both gentleman find themselves on the losing side of arguments. (Inclusing archives, the talkpage is now roughly 250k for an article of not even 5k... The Banner talk 08:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Pre- and post-nominals discussion needs reopening

This closure challenge on WP:AN has run its course and the tone of the discussion is moving in the wrong direction. Could an uninvolved administrator assess if the original closure needs to be reopened? BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Transgender#Merge transsexual into transgender

Not sure how much longer the merge discussion should stay open. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. That looks more than ready to be closed. (But it's a touchy topic, so I don't feel qualified to do it myself.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)