Wikipedia:Closure requests

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

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 9 July 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 and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.

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}}.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed variation to WP:NOTDIRECTORY (revisiting simple lists)

(Initiated 436 days ago on 30 May 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#RfC on capitals of Kashmir-region related administrative subdivisions

(Initiated 423 days ago on 12 June 2023) No new !votes in over a week and the main involved editors agree that it is ready to close with one wishing to start an updated RFC. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames

(Initiated 422 days ago on 12 June 2023). Sticking in this request now, while it's still a little early for a close as there's still comments being added and we're still 13 days before we hit the 30 day mark, this is a long RfC. On ScottishFinnishRadish's unpatented/untrademarked tomat scale, this is approximately 2 tomats. Putting in this request now so that experienced closers can arrange now whether they want to do this as a panel, or otherwise express interest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name_Inclusion,_reopened

(Initiated 417 days ago on 17 June 2023) This discussion has had a lot of a feedback and seems to be trending ~3/4 in favor of content inclusion. I'm not sure if that's enough for WP:SNOW, but it would be nice if someone could review now. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given there was another recently closed RfC the same topic (closed by ScottishFinnishRadish on 14 June) I am not going to close this yet, although I'll leave the request here as other editors may believe that the discussion is ready for closure. For future reference NickCT, please remember that any request here should be neutrally worded; it is fine to say that you believe you see a consensus and that a discussion is ripe for closure based on that but you shouldn't say what position you believe the consensus is for. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: - The guidance above reads "If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally worded request". I guess I'd argue that given the super majority, consensus doesn't seem unclear, but I'd udnerstand if folks felt differently.

I appreciate there was a recent RfC on the topic. Is there a limit on how many RfC's on a topic we can cycle through in a given length of time? Given that this is a developing recent event, it might behoove us to be light on our feet. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What that section refers to is that if consensus is clear then there is no need to request the discussion be closed by an uninvolved editor.

There isn't a limit, but in this case I believe it is best to let the RfC play out. However other closers may disagree, and I have no objection if they choose to close the discussion prior to the expiry of the tag. BilledMammal (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal It has been nine days since this comment of yours, and also nine days since anybody has left a comment on the RfC. I believe it is appropriate to close it at this time. Combefere ★ Talk 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#rfc_F7270BA

(Initiated 415 days ago on 20 June 2023) It's probably a good idea for this discussion to have an official close by an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Combefere ★ Talk 01:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Combefere:, I have some feedback on the close. First it was closed as no consensus as you admitted you gave less weight to certain votes, particularly those who opposed censorship (policy states "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so."). By my math I see 9 supports and 8 against, prior to any weighting of votes. Second, WP:ONUS i would think would also apply to adding and keeping a special policy to an article, in this case policy #14. As it is clear there is even an unweighted consensus to remove the policy, the consensus to keep this policy on the article, specifically keeping a special policy #14, clearly lacks consensus to keep it. Why would we allow a policy to be placed on an article, and three years later when it lacks even a simply majority of support, the policy is kept on the article? This badly fails ONUS. Third it is clear that an overwhelming percentage of recent votes have been in support, and we might take those to be uninvolved editors. Early involved editors know about and participate in an RFC and later uninvolved editors participate. It seems to me you closed it early and could have waited another few weeks to see what happens. Fourth you will also note that a few of the no votes voted so stating there was no specific proposal, which there was only a day or two after the RFC started. Fifth, many votes, including your close summary cited DUE, MEDRS, FRINGE referring to WP:CRYSTAL of what might be added in the future, while I didnt see any comments that referred to my text proposal (cited in the RFC by request of a few editors) saying my proposed text was UNDUE, FRINGE, or violated MEDRS. Thus most of the comments center on the concept of speculating on what might be added in the future (something that we already have CRYSTAL to deal with). What's the rush to close the RFC? Why weight the votes and not just count it 9 vs 8 and instead apply your interpretation of policy to change the outcome? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with much that was said here. I requested a close from an experienced editor and with all due respect that's not what has occured. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf:

By my math it was 11 supporting and 9 against, but it's also not a vote. The bulk of the discussion centered on whether or not lab-leak theory is still considered WP:FRINGE, with seven editors on each side of that argument. Frankly, I found the arguments that it was not fringe to be somewhat weak, either entirely argument by assertion (this is not fringe because I say so), or appeals to public opinion for a scientific claim. If anything, I was in-between "no consensus" and "consensus to keep Point #14 on the basis that the lab-leak theory is fringe and undue." Editors supporting the proposition could have done better by citing reliable scientific sources to support their argument that lab leak theory was not fringe, which may have helped swing more editors to their side to form a consensus.
WP:ONUS states in full: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The only relevant disputed content is the inclusion of lab-leak theory in the article; there must be a consensus to include it. You seem to be implying that the WP:ONUS of this RfC is on editors in opposition to your proposal. This is a misapplication of the policy, which is about verifiability of information in articles, not about settling discussions on talk pages (even ones about policies).
The vast majority of comments took place in the first week of the RfC. The RfC tag had nearly expired, discussion had petered out (yes, despite one comment made about 2 weeks after everyone else had stopped discussing) and this was posted on closure requests, so it seemed an appropriate time to close.
This was not part of my decision to close in favor of no consensus. See #1.
WP:CRYSTAL states in part: "Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." You seem to be implying that Wikipedia editors cannot make consensus guidelines on talk pages for the purpose of preventing future disruptive editing to the page. This is a misapplication of the policy, which precludes certain types of speculation in articles on the basis of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

Courtesy ping to @Nemov:

Based on the points above, I will decline to change my closing summary, or reopen the RfC. While there are certainly more experienced editors on the encyclopedia, I felt that I had a full understanding of the history of the discussion, the arguments at play in the discussion, and the relevant policies; I would not have closed otherwise. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE applies of course, if you'd like other editors to review. Please read the policy thoroughly before proceeding in that direction. Combefere ★ Talk 15:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC: Clarify the 5% rule for parliamentary elections

(Initiated 409 days ago on 25 June 2023) This is the latest rehashing of the 5% election rule. The discussion seems to have run its course. There have been no comments for two weeks. Please close when appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of African countries by population#RfC: Should this list include territories, disputed countries and outlying islands?

(Initiated 408 days ago on 26 June 2023) Discussion seems finished. Most were of one view, although some raised procedural concerns that may prevent concensus (my fault). Would like an impartial closure who can say what the consensus was exactly. Wizmut (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Total
CfD	10	10
TfD	20	20
MfD	5	5
FfD	0	0
RfD	95	95
AfD	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 21#Category:Depictions_of_people_on_film

(Initiated 532 days ago on 23 February 2023) Last comment in may; older by several months than other unclosed CfDs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Ecotage#Merging with Eco-terrorism

(Initiated 663 days ago on 14 October 2022) - A merge proposal between two synonyms, Eco-terrorism and Ecotage, best considered by any uninvolved editor, the question being whether readers are best served by having the them discussed in one place or two. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn_Zech

(Initiated 479 days ago on 17 April 2023) - Discussion pretty much ran its course, would like a closure. Few days ago there was another side discussion about if their was consensus to remove the accusations, should we still be using sources that have the accusations in the title. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why is this discussion still going on. Everything is just turning around in circles anyway. And they started again today, without ANYTHING new in mind. Kizo2703 (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is referring to my comment seeking a continuation of the discussion and, possibly, an RFC. I'm new to the discussion, and I thought I'd brought up new/fair points, but Kizo apparently disagrees. I don' think this is the appropriate place to have a conversation on the merits of closure, so I'll let my comment there speak for itself.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but I think Kizo has a good point that the conversation is going in circles and should be resolved sooner rather than later. Keeping it open is not necessarily good. Historyday01 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transsexual#Transgender_and_Transsexual_Merge

(Initiated 460 days ago on 5 May 2023) (Note that this started off as more of a discussion thread before becoming more of a Requested Merge with bolded !votes.) -sche (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could get a closure on this discussion. It's gotten down to just a few editors litigated their views. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox aircraft#Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:

(Initiated 454 days ago on 11 May 2023) It appears that there won't be any more comments, and I assume that there are enough discussion to draw conclusions for both sub-discussions. Prarambh20 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_157#Multi-part_proposal_for_content_on_E._Jean_Carroll_v._Trump

(Initiated 452 days ago on 14 May 2023) Three-part discussion was never closed, now archived. starship .paint (exalt) 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India

(Initiated 440 days ago on 25 May 2023). There appears to be a consensus on this question from the WMF. Discussion continues but has mostly died out. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Cortador. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 06:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards