Wikipedia:Closure requests
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
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 18 September 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 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 the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.
If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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.
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.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
RfCs
(Initiated 1692 days ago on 29 February 2020) Discussion has petered out. May require assessing consensus together with earlier discussion (linked in the RfC). Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe give it a few more days to allow people time to respond to my last comment. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1683 days ago on 10 March 2020): Can a neutral editor please close this RfC? A bot removed the RfC template a while ago but the discussion was never formally resolved. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Although this has been opened for several months, it might be best to wait one more week; another editor pointed out that this would impact several other articles - other campuses of the same university - so I've just dropped a note about this RfC on the relevant Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1604 days ago on 28 May 2020)
- A short discussion at the end made it apparent that there is not enough agreement on the outcome to avoid a formal close. Thanks. (Moved here from WP:AN; hadn't realized this page existed.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. The answer to that question seemed to be: "Yes".—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus for this RfC, because it seems to me nothing new can be said regarding the issues at hand. I dunno how much should I describe the discussion, but I'll say that a large percentage of responses are based on a lack of understanding of WP policy, guidelines (MOS:ETHNICITY) and also of some plain facts. Thank you, Notrium (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- Since this was posted here in a non-neutral fashion, I'll counter that some of the responses seem to be by a banned editor (WP:SOCK) and that many of them seem to miss the point of WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: so you "fix" the "non-neutrality" by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of socking? Notrium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- This is not the place to continue the dispute. If you wish to make your comments go at the SPI, your current behaviour is just WP:BADGER everywhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: so you "fix" the "non-neutrality" by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of socking? Notrium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1597 days ago on 3 June 2020) Formal close requested due to specific of nature of proposal to add a warn edit filter and/or Xlinkbot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1594 days ago on 7 June 2020) Formal close requested due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs. — Tartan357 (Talk) 08:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Note - This RfC followed two other main RfCs on this matter a few months earlier, which are discussed in this latest RfC. The older RfCs recently archived. The first one, initiated by MrX, can be found here. The second one, initiated by Smith0124, can be found here. Hope that helps.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC begins with
With this RfC, I’m hoping we can resolve the issue of infobox inclusion criteria, which remain hotly debated for this and other primary elections, such as the Republican primaries.
, and statesWhich of the following criteria should be used to determine which candidates are to be included in infoboxes on United States presidential primary election pages, including those for ongoing elections?
, which implies the scope of the RfC to be larger than just the Democratic Party primaries. In which case, has this discussion been properly advertised to other parties which may have an interest? I would imagine the topic to be within the scope of, and of particular interest to, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries (it seems there was a similar separate RfC for the Republican primaries). I don't think there has been the proper advertisement to assume consensus for the broad change requested in the RfC, but consensus for a local change can be ascertained. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: That's fine. Can you go ahead and close it with the local consensus? My intent was to advertise it to a wider audience, but I decided not to when it quickly got wrapped up in an ongoing argument between two editors. It started to become difficult to discuss anything other than the issue directly at hand. No discussion was had at any point regarding infoboxes on other election pages, so I'll go ahead and strike those parts of my question. — Tartan357 (Talk) 21:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader, I concur re Tartan's edits indicating limited scope, so it now seems to be properly set for close. Humanengr (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1590 days ago on 11 June 2020) It has been two weeks since the last substantial addition, but as the discussion topic indicates, this is a controversial subject. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1582 days ago on 19 June 2020) Too contentious to easily close. PainProf (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment: I've opened an actual RFC just now as it was only a talk page discussion. I suggest waiting until any discussion from that is finished. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1599 days ago on 2 June 2020) Could an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus regarding the proposal below? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1565 days ago on 6 July 2020) Could an experienced and uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at the moving request and perform the move? Imperadors (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 39 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 1584 days ago on 16 June 2020) This DRV is in need of close by someone familiar with FFD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1584 days ago on 17 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this DRV discussion. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1576 days ago on 25 June 2020) Could an experienced editor do this one too, please?—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 3284 days ago on 21 October 2015) Could someone finally close this 5-year-old discussion that already reached a consensus? The apparently "still on-going" discussion is being used by involved editors from back then as a pretext for reverting any addition of an infobox to Jean Sibelius by new users even 5 years later. --MiniCacti (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Old, unclosed discussions expire over time, and that discussion has languished unclosed for five years. I don't think closing a five-year-old discussion now is the right way to end that edit war. Maybe an uninvolved sysop will step in and restore order, though.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1920 days ago on 16 July 2019) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split? Also, on a side note, there is a complete lack of split/move/history attribution for Lynn Anderson discography, Lynn Anderson singles discography and Lynn Anderson albums discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: The Lynn Anderson issues are nothing to do with any of the threads at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes or its subject page. It's also nothing to do with this page, which is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Please do not put multiple unrelated requests under the same heading; this is not the first time that you have done this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1666 days ago on 27 March 2020) It was difficult getting feedback on whether to merge three pages together due to repeating the same information. Would an experienced editor assist in closing the discussion? Thank you. lullabying (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1613 days ago on 19 May 2020) – Please, this needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1608 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_297#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1607 days ago on 25 May 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?? — JFG talk 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- JFG, I don't believe formal closure is required.
- This discussion is one of brainstorming, in response to an RfC where the closer suggested the normal consensus process be followed to generate a more refined list of options. The aim of this discussion should be, and initially appeared to be, to generate suggestions of a more refined list for an upcoming RfC. That said, I believe the question is poorly formulated, and hence turned into a mess.
- Inclusion of the (a) point has distracted discussion. There may be a weak consensus to include a mention of coronavirus. 10 reasoned responses were in support. The opposes fall mainly into two camps: those who do not support agreeing to a vague notion of "something" being added (2 responses), and a second camp which actually oppose inclusion of the content (8 responses). The main reasons for opposition to inclusion are: the issue being faced globally and not being Trump-specific (5 responses), and it being too soon (4 responses).
- But the point of this discussion (per part (b) of the question, and prior RfC closure) seems to have been to decide on some options on how the coronavirus should be mentioned. Yet, only two proposals have been presented in this discussion, and neither gained sufficient support. Two previous discussions on the matter, 1 and 2, failed to reach consensus on the same issue. Neutrality and perceived bias were presented as concerns in each of the 4 discussions.
- As the point of the discussion was meant to be for brainstorming, for a future RfC, I don't see formal closure being required, other than perhaps to encourage editors to move onto a new section with a better formulated question. I leave the ultimate decision to close to someone else. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis. Indeed the discussion is going nowhere. Sounds like a "no consensus" close would make sense, but I'm too involved to do it. If you're not willing to formally close, perhaps you could just copy your conclusions there as a comment. — JFG talk 06:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- My only concern here is that this isn't really an RfC; it's a brainstorming exercise, albeit one that has lost track of its purpose. I can see why closure would be helpful - to encourage editors to move to a new section which doesn't lose track of its purpose - but I'm not confident enough as to what would be the most helpful outcome to make the decision. It'd be best for someone else to make the decision on whether to close, or what else to do about it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your analysis. Indeed the discussion is going nowhere. Sounds like a "no consensus" close would make sense, but I'm too involved to do it. If you're not willing to formally close, perhaps you could just copy your conclusions there as a comment. — JFG talk 06:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Done.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Merger_proposal? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op? — JFG talk 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1586 days ago on 15 June 2020) – This move proposal has run its course and a consensus to rename the page has been formed. However, a user who would otherwise have taken responsibility to close the discussion has elected not to, because of potential conflict-of-interest concerns. So, I'm requesting that somebody else willing to do so to please close this discussion so that the necessary changes to the article and wikilinks to said article can take place! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 18 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)