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.
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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 1 August 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
XfD
No comments for a couple of days bar my bump, consensus is pretty clear. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
There are two open discussions that were open almost a month ago, and nobody has commented on them in over 3 weeks, and to me, the conesus seems pretty clear on both of them. JDDJS (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Messy RfDs about Ottoman princesses
There are two expired RfDs on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4 which seem to have arisen from a botched move / fork sequence. I'm not sure I know what the best course of action is - can we have a fresh pair of admin eyes to close this and perform the appropriate remedial actions? Deryck C. 22:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This has been open 7 days, it was opened 14 May 2015, and looks like a possible WP:SNOW. Real discussion has stopped a few days ago and a few !votes have trickled in since then, but its pretty clear the direction this is heading. At this point we have those that are against the essay rehashing the same arguments. AlbinoFerret 14:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
CfD backlog
There are currently many open discussions, including some going all the way back to December. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Discussions_awaiting_closure. - jc37 17:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- As of 12 May, December is done but there are three remaining from January, 9 from February and over 70 from March. – Fayenatic London 07:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
There are twelve discussions of Feb 21 still open while it's nearly two months later. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Down to ten discussions as of now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but it's now down to 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Now down to two. Some of the usual CfD closers can't close these as they have participated in the discussions. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, but it's now down to 9. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't think so, I still count 12. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
An admin will be needed soonish to close the above. It's about the close of an AN/I topic-ban discussion related to biomedical articles. Several editors disagreed with the closer's interpretation of consensus, so whoever closes this should ideally have no involvement with biomedical issues, alternative medicine or animal health. Many thanks, Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Seems
Already done by admin Adjwilley ― Padenton|✉ 21:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This Incident Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Inappropriate_Actions_and_behavors_by_Editors_Padenton_and_Msnicki was archived without being officially closed or any action taken. Could someone review it and officially close it or take appropriate action. Thank you for your time. Itsmeront (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Requested moves
Anyone have a mop? Some of the discussions there are backed up all the way from early February. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The move request was withdrawn about half a month ago (8 May 2015), and there have been no more comments since that day. Khestwol (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Requests for comment
This discussion, begun April 27, has reached a point of repeated arguments by the same few editors. It is over 26,000 words long after fewer than 10 days. If it's left without closure for much longer, it will be the size of a small novel and daunt any attempts at closing it. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's two weeks since the initial request, and the time-consuming morass is worse than ever. Respectfully requesting closure, with the acknowledgment that it might be a challenging task. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm the originator of the RfC. I agree, and came here to request formal closure by an uninvolved admin. The issue is contentious and consensus remains unclear; It may also have wiki-wide implications. The RfC discussion is quite lengthy, so a summary of the RfC (i.e. a concise outline of the main points presented by both sides of the issue) is here. Lapadite (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
An RfC and a survey was opened following inconsistency and edit-war for place in the collage at infobox top. After long discussion a list of 30 people and a resulting collage image was made. This process started on March 31. A total of 122 nominations were made, 29 editors voted, 14 editors discussed, 2 filter systems were discussed and merged, 11 editors have agreed to ratify it, 3 editors complained, 1 editor remained apprehensive. This is time for closing this long discussion. An non-involved admin would be the right person to do it. –nafSadh did say 06:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please close this merge request? PaleAqua (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC has run for 30 days. Note that there are two parts to this RfC, the disclaimer and the JavaScript. Consensus about the disclaimer seems pretty clear, but people might disagree about the clarity of the consensus related to the JavaScript. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
This RFC was opened in March. At this point it's run for well over 30 days. Editors are unlikely to come to an agreement on what the consensus is. Could use a close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Done --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Can an experienced editor summarize the consensus at the above link? A simple count does not yield a clear result. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Both discussions were started over a month ago. I'd like to get an uninvolved closer. Note: both discussions were continued over at NPOVN, but discussion there has been inactive for over 10 days. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done. --GRuban (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The caller of the RFC (which they say is part 1 of a 2-part RFC) states they have no position on [the] issue. SlimVirgin, Coretheapple and I say the RfC is disruptive. (Location says it's not neutrally worded too.) I'm here to urge an early close on that basis. The RfC conflates CoI, FCoI and PAE. --Elvey(t•c) 01:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Kraxler (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This RfC was opened by an inexperienced editor who was seeking advice on how best to link to episode articles. The question refers to a specific article and the outcome cannot affect MOS:TV so the RfC is moot. In any case, the editor has now received advice and seems happy to close the RfC.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- AussieLegend, could you say what is the current usage recommended by MOS:TV on this point? It would help to formulate a closing statement, although it was not mentioned by anybody in the RfC. Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS doesn't specify as it's not something that is going to be consistent. Like most of what we add to Wikipedia the solution depends on individual circumstances and is left to editorial judgement. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- Done Closed. Kraxler (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS doesn't specify as it's not something that is going to be consistent. Like most of what we add to Wikipedia the solution depends on individual circumstances and is left to editorial judgement. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- AussieLegend, could you say what is the current usage recommended by MOS:TV on this point? It would help to formulate a closing statement, although it was not mentioned by anybody in the RfC. Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)