Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 38.96.9.224 (talk) at 05:21, 16 August 2017 (→‎RfCs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Shortcuts

    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 23 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

    Place new administrative discussions above this line

    RfCs

    Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#RfC on scope

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#RfC on scope (Initiated 2574 days ago on 5 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors#Reliability of sources in rolling stock articles (social media etc)

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors#Reliability of sources in rolling stock articles (social media etc) (Initiated 2560 days ago on 19 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts

    Because there has been some debate in a involved editor and because there has been disputes as to the consensus, I request an independent admin (or two) to close and evaluate the consensus however it shall be read. I have a personal view but wish for the community's wishes to be accurately rendered. I also understand that it may still be too early to close and render a consensus, in which case I give consent to have the date parameter adjusted for the template. (Initiated 2524 days ago on 25 July 2017) Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion started on 25 July, Hasteur. May you change from "5 July" to "25 July" please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My factual and simple close of a stalled discussion showing 42-12 support was improperly unilaterally overturned claiming unclear consensus possibly in violation of WP:NAC and definitely against the instructions at the top of this page. I request an uninvolved admin review my close and, if they agree, restore the close and the related changes to CSD13. I'm open to tweaks to my proposed G13 wording, but the right to do a NAC close is well established by community decision. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: I said today's date in the revision where I requested it. You want Kostas20142 who declared July 5th. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Without commenting on the merits (or not) of the previous close, I think this should be left open for a while longer. While the vote numbers are clearly pointing one way, when taken with the context of previous discussion (and more apart from these) on what to do with stale drafts, it is clear that the closure will have to take the wider picture into account. Holding off for another 2 weeks, and having an uninvolved closure won't do any harm here. For reference, I would be happy to close this once discussion has come to a natural close, but as of now I don't think this has quite happened yet. Mdann52 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Echio Mdann52.Winged Blades Godric 03:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mdann52 and Winged Blades of Godric: I agree that it's probably far too early for this to close, however when we had some disagreement already in the attempted closure of this already, I wanted to get in on record that I want an independent admin (or a few) to close this RFC when the time comes. Hasteur (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)#[reply]
    @Hasteur: Completely agree with you here - as an early close has been discussed by some, I just wanted to register my opposition to this being closed "soon", and it wasn't commenting on the merits of the action of bringing it here. Mdann52 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Battle of Ia Drang#RfC:Delete section

    (Initiated 2579 days ago on 31 May 2017) An RfC there has been posted for quite a long time with a few comments. It has expired for twice. Can anybody close it? Ams&CVA (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an obvious no consensus.No points in closing.Winged Blades Godric 09:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia#Request for comment: Scope and title of this article

    (Initiated 2550 days ago on 28 June 2017) RFC over. Could someone provide a close? Casprings (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:James Jamerson#RfC - age of James Jamerson at his death.

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Jamerson#RfC - age of James Jamerson at his death. (Initiated 2555 days ago on 24 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Iran/Archive 18#RfC about the use of "Persia" and "Iran" in historic contexts

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iran/Archive 18#RfC about the use of "Persia" and "Iran" in historic contexts (Initiated 2555 days ago on 24 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Lifta#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lifta#RfC (Initiated 2544 days ago on 5 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC (Initiated 2540 days ago on 9 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)#RfC

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)#RfC (Initiated 2540 days ago on 9 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Archaeology of Israel#Christianity

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Archaeology of Israel#Christianity (Initiated 2537 days ago on 12 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Doctor Who#Request for comments on Doctor Who News as a reliable source

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who#Request for comments on Doctor Who News as a reliable source (Initiated 2525 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Identitarian movement#White supremacy

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Identitarian movement#White supremacy (Initiated 2552 days ago on 27 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity#RfC: Russian interference in Background section

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity#RfC: Russian interference in Background section (Initiated 2542 days ago on 7 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:/r/The Donald#RfC on definition in lead sentence

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:/r/The Donald#RfC on definition in lead sentence (Initiated 2538 days ago on 11 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Portal talk:Current events#RfC about Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Current events#RfC about Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017 (Initiated 2551 days ago on 28 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Kombucha#Rfc about the format of the page, food or MOS:MED.

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kombucha#Rfc about the format of the page, food or MOS:MED. (Initiated 2546 days ago on 3 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR

    Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR (Initiated 2550 days ago on 29 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Working Winged Blades Godric 10:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Trump Tower wiretapping allegations#RfC: Should this article include David Bromwich's allegations from the London Review of Books?

    Would an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close it here? Dschslava Δx parlez moi 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criteria

    Can you please close the RFC as snow consensus against G14 and A12 --38.96.9.224 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line

    Deletion discussions

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programming by language

    (Initiated 2685 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request

    (Initiated 2601 days ago on 8 May 2017) A long discussion has accompanied a slow-motion revert war over the inclusion of a journalist's cited views, which may be UNDUE. The talk thread is at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#Goodin redux. Could an Admin please review and close these discussions so as to settle whether there is consensus to include the comments of Mr. Goodin in the article? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 227#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER

    Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Wikipedia content? (Initiated 2570 days ago on 9 June 2017). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Fine_Young_Capitalists/1

    (Initiated 2572 days ago on 7 June 2017) Can someone close this GAR? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Bias re: Linda Sarsour

    WP:FORUMSHOP – started less than 24 hours after opening discussion on article talk page. User who started discussion has not shown good-faith effort to build consensus on the article talk page (Talk:Linda Sarsour#Criticism section), or to understand the relevant parts of WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automatic column mode for references element

    An uninvolved editor should close the discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2536 days ago on 13 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Humanscale § Proposed merge with Niels Diffrient

    (Initiated 2541 days ago on 7 July 2017). Requesting closure by an uninvolved user. North America1000 00:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dipra Dattasarma

    (Initiated 0 days ago on 22 June 2024) Requesting review/closure of this SPI. CU results were posted on 3 August (5 days ago), and since then, 11 new SPA accounts have been created to disrupt the AFD process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHAPSODY( Annual social of MEDICAL COLLEGE , KOLKATA). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 July#Usher (musician)

    An uninvolved editor should close the move review please. Thanks. (Initiated 2524 days ago on 25 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Congee § Proposed merge with Teochew porridge

    (Initiated 3064 days ago on 1 February 2016) Requesting closure by an uninvolved user. North America1000 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 August

    An uninvolved editor should close a couple ongoing discussions please. Thanks. (Initiated 2513 days ago on 5 August 2017) --George Ho (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=795742941"