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.

Step 1: Most discussions do not need formal closure and should not be listed here.

Most discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus. 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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 4 June 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. Usually, people wait at least a week after it opened, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

Step 2: If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request for assistance.

Please ensure that your request here 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 up to several weeks 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.

Step 3: Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, not just admins.

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.

Requests for closure

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Backlog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working § Discussions awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Talk:Right-wing socialism#RfC: Split article and form disambiguation page

There is an RfC where the template has expired. I believe the concensus is clear and tried to close, but was reverted on the grounds that I am not an administrator. Regards. Op47 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to closer: Please consider the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism (2nd nomination) in your close. One of the RfC participants wrote that "those who opined at the AfD should really have been notified of this", so the arguments made at the AfD are likely relevant to this discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Undone -- the article deletion requires a new AfD, not a simple RfC on the page which was not widely participated in. Backdoor deletions with low participation are "not done". BTW, 4 to 2 is rarely called a "clear consensus" by anyone I know. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a thread at ANI that is discussing this issue.[1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC discussion has ended, but still needs a formal closure. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, I believe the outcome of the ANI thread was to notify participants of the prior AfD and allow them time to comment. There have been no comments or !votes for one month and the RfC as a whole has been open for 2 months. I'd say it's time someone closed it (yet again--they say three's a charm).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:British Isles#RfC: Is the disputed but referenced, "most favoured", alternative relevant?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Isles#RfC: Is the disputed but referenced, "most favoured", alternative relevant? (initiated 16 February 2014)? There are several proposals in that section including the subsection Talk:British Isles#Poll regarding 'Britain and Ireland' in the introduction. Please see also the discussion about closure at Talk:British Isles#Closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Cārvāka#RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cārvāka#RfC: Was Cārvāka a Hindu Nastika system? (initiated 23 January 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#RFC to resolve conflict between MOS:TM, MOS:CT WP:TITLETM WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#RFC to resolve conflict between MOS:TM, MOS:CT WP:TITLETM WP:RS WP:COMMONNAME (initiated 7 February 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#RFC_on_Soviet_rapes

This RFC has been fruitless and won't help to solve the dispute there. It's time to close this. One of the Users is willing to try other dispute resolution after this ends. It would just be better to move the process along.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So if an univolved editor wouldn't mind please close this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that the RfC was incorrectly worded, so it can be closed as invalid. -YMB29 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Berlin#RFC on Soviet rapes (initiated 7 March 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

1. Is inline attribution needed for the sentence "During, and in the days immediately following the assault, in many areas of the city, vengeful Soviet troops (often rear echelon units) engaged in mass rape, pillage and murder" ?
2. Should the article include the sentence "These claims are criticized by Russian historians like Oleg Rzheshevsky, who stated that such descriptions of the Red Army are similar to the images instilled by Nazi propaganda" ?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is important to know that the way the RfC was worded was biased and misleading. The wording does not accurately represent the dispute on the talk page. The user who hastily created the RfC quickly commented in it himself without understanding the dispute.

Then there was a third question added later, after some users already commented.

Also, the first question did not make it clear that the issue was inline attribution, and many users thought it was inline citation.

Can someone just close the RfC as invalid. I hope to resolve the dispute using dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This actually ended on its own on April 6. It didn't violate any policy as YMB is trying to assert.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you think I was talking about you? I was talking about Diannaa, the user who started the RfC. -YMB29 (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think you were talking to me. I made no indication to make you think that. This area is for closing RFCs and other things. Not invalidating them. Pushing pov does nothing here. Since the RFC is over you have nothing complain about.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is "pushing POV" here? I don't understand what you are talking about. -YMB29 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you yourself said that it is "highly biased and doesn't represent the dispute"[2]. -YMB29 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Editor review#RfC: Should we mark WP:ER as historical?

The following discussion 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.

---

Question presented: Whether the WP:ER board's level of activity merits its closure and marking as historical.

Formal RfC opened 2 March, delisted 31 March. Discussion is fairly stagnant at this point, and given the !voting breakdown, while based on the discussion I believe there is a clearly appropriate outcome, as the person who started the RfC I'm not comfortable doing it myself. I have posted a neutral !vote count at the RfC for the convenience of anybody interested in assessing the closure. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Provisionally closed pending new proposal by participant -- recommend revisiting in a couple weeks. NE Ent 20:50, 13 April 2014 (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.

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead

Closure is needed on this matter; the WP:RfC expired on March 30 and a closure is needed to indicate what the WP:Consensus is (whether there is or is not one) for that WP:RfC. There has been one recent comment since the WP:RfC expired and the fact that the editor noticed the WP:RfC appears to have been due to a different discussion currently going on there; the WP:RfC is otherwise stagnant. Flyer22 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Taliban#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Taliban#Request for comment (initiated 25 February 2014) The opening poster wrote: "Should the lede mention that the Taliban originated in Pakistan?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4 (initiated 28 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

Judith Curry was removed and I added again. The previous talk on this was Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming/Archive_31#Judith_Curry_3 and I do not believe there was a consensus for removal. Has that changed or was I wrong or do we need an RfC?

A close is necessary because this has been discussed repeatedly:

1. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 29#Judith Curry (initiated 22 October 2012)
2. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 31#Judith Curry 2 (initiated 9 January 2014)
3. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 31#Judith Curry 3 (initiated 21 January 2014)
4. Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4 (initiated 28 February 2014)

Here are several suggestions:

1. Please consider the previous discussions in your close.
2. Please link to the previous discussions in your close so they are all aggregated in one place on the RfC that will determine whether Judith Curry should be kept or removed from the article..
3. Please consider either announcing your closure on the talk page or unarchiving Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming/Archive 33#Judith Curry 4 and then closing it.

The list currently contains Judith Curry. If your conclusion is no consensus (having not read the discussions, I do not know), please consider whether BLP (specifically Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content) results in the material being omitted by default in the absence of a clear consensus to include it.

If BLP does not cause the material to be omitted by default, then please consider whether the status quo is to keep or omit the entry. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP does indeed default to not include this person, and the evidence for inclusion is distinctly WP:ORish. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 March#Black crowned crane

Wanted: An admin with the courage to essentially disregard all of this text and make the outcome dependent on the broader RfC on bird names. Since the MRV hinges on competing views of naming conventions, which that discussion can settle, there is little value in keeping it open. If I were the closer, I might add a disclaimer that the MRV can be revisited if the RfC results in no consensus (still early days, but this seems unlikely). --BDD (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's probably time to close the RFC as well at this point: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#A new proposal regarding bird article names—Other than some offsite canvassing going on, I think new input is petering out. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Love to, but I have no idea which of the ten gazillion topic specific closure templates to use. Drop me a note on my talk page and I will do the needful. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:List of automobile marques#Proposed merger from List of automobile manufacturers

• Requesting closure of this dated discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Just archive it, nobody's going to object. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)