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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 April 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, Wikipedia:Files for deletion § Old discussions, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files § Holding cell, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Wikipedia:Non-free content review

This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(Initiated 3259 days ago on 13 June 2015)

About 155 discussions still to be closed.

Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it OK for Wikipedia to choose its own pronunciation symbols?

This discussion is happening on three pages at once (NORNB, Help talk:IPA for English where it actually belongs, plus another at MOS:PRONUNCIATION). This NORNB tine of the fork has turned into another couple-of-editors-textwalling-against-each-other thing, and is actually in the wrong venue. WP:NOR pertains to the information content, not how WP presentationally wraps it. I.e., the actual content that is subject to core content policies is what the pronunciation(s) is/are. WP has multiple pronunciation transcription markup systems, and like our citation styles, this is WP-original metadata, not subject to WP:CORE. One of them is based on (mostly American) dictionary-style pronunciation keys: [pro-NUN-see-ay-shun]; the other loosely based on IPA. Both are synthetic and are internal matters, and not subject to WP:NOR / WP:V. As long as the pronunciation that emerges in the reader's mind is verifiable, it does not matter what markup wrapper we convey it with. Both of our extant pronunciation guide systems could be replaced tomorrow with something entirely different and even more arbitrary (even one consisting of entirely WP-invented orthography, though that would not of course be practical). While I agree that OP has a point – it's not wise for us to use a WP-modified version of IPA that conflicts with IPA norms that a linguist would expect – that's not an NOR matter, but a matter for consensus discussion at the IPA for English talk page. The discussion there should remain open until naturally resolved or a closure request is made, while the one at NORNB should be closed as no consensus / off topic. (Initiated 3123 days ago on 27 October 2015)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Now both sides of the dispute have conceded that this won't be resolved as a WP:NOR issue, so this fork of the discussion has no reason to stay open at WP:NORNB, and can be centralized, finally, at Help talk:IPA for English, which is collectively trying to actually resolve it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Now archivec at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Is it OK for Wikipedia to choose its own pronunciation symbols?. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Campus sexual assault#RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey (Initiated 3145 days ago on 5 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The RFC was reposted Nov 17th. AlbinoFerret 23:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks

Would an experienced editor admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks (Initiated 3114 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this is on an admin board, shouldn’t an admin close it? AlbinoFerret 18:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, you are correct. I have fixed my post, thank you. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles

Would an administrator assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles (Initiated 3108 days ago on 11 November 2015) and administer news of a topic ban to the user in question if that is what consensus calls for? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Community discussion regarding disruptive edits to Heathenry-themed articles (Initiated 3108 days ago on 11 November 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#Proposed topic ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 November#Kim Davis (county clerk)

(Initiated 3110 days ago on 9 November 2015) - review of a move originally proposed 21 October 2015. Experience closing contentious discussions needed, and apologies in advance for the wall of text. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has waned past the point of productivity. Calidum T|C 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Total discussion stopped December 2, so it is stable and ready for closure. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 8#Category:Blue-eyed soul singers

(Initiated 3111 days ago on 8 November 2015)

(edit conflict) Discussion has been open since 8 November 2015. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette#RFC Are these sources the same?

Would an experienced editor close this one. It should be easy and quick. (Initiated 3120 days ago on 30 October 2015). There is a second RFC on the same topic started the same day, but split off 4 days later that adds questions Talk:Electronic cigarette#Questions added after the start of the RfC above. It was started by a now topic banned editor.(Initiated 3116 days ago on 3 November 2015) This should be another easy quick close. AlbinoFerret 13:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal

Consensus seems clear and discussion has halted, so an administrator is needed to review and close three topic bans, and possibly enforce the topic bans at the following incident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal. I can help however I can. Thank you. (Initiated 3100 days ago on 19 November 2015) SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Allie X Topic Ban Proposal (Initiated 3100 days ago on 19 November 2015)? See the subsections Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for WordSeventeen and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban for SanctuaryX. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a subsection for Zpeopleheart as well at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-Ban for Zpeopleheart Please resolve this quickly because there are still ongoing issues that need to be resolved ASAP. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 14:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

In all actuality there are new comments and discussion points have been added since the last archiving for lack of discussion, so discussion may continue. So any admin or other proper person please unarchive the whole deal so we make discuss greely to make it gair for all parties. Thanks. WordSeventeen (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have unarchived the discussion. Cunard (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The only continued "discussion" was you opposing your own ban after removing your comments from my talk page. The discussion is very much stalled, with a pretty clear consensus for all three cases; it can still be closed regardless of whether it is archived or not. SanctuaryX^{Stop talking in codes} 21:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

sanx, I do note this comment that you placed here. You are though quite incorrect on the policies and protocol at wikipedia. Please do have a fantastic day©! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Wordseventeen, SanctuaryX is correct. In an issue that has been as tendentious as this one has been, it's a good idea to not suggest that someone is quite incorrect about policies and protocol unless you are going to back it up with diffs and links to specific policies. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nicholas A. Christakis#RCF: Recentism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nicholas A. Christakis#RCF: Recentism (Initiated 3100 days ago on 19 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#Juraj Sklenár's view (Initiated 3124 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Alternative theories of the location of Great Moravia#RfC: Sklenár's theory.Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Political correctness#Definition of political correctness

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Political correctness#Definition of political correctness (Initiated 3113 days ago on 6 November 2015)? See Talk:Political correctness#Closing this RfC. The opening poster wrote: "Is political correctness a concept of not offending — especially the marginalized — in a community or is it primarily pejorative?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Certification Table Entry#Sales figures: combined vs traditional (Initiated 3118 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jedediah Smith#Request for Comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jedediah Smith#Request for Comment (Initiated 3118 days ago on 1 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this needs a formal closure. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC about WP:NOTHERE

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RfC about WP:NOTHERE (Initiated 3117 days ago on 2 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done following rough on the link RFC, a new RFC has been started and is not ready for close yet.NE Ent 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Removed Not done template. There is no open RfC at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent is there another RFC, and does the one now on the page need closing? AlbinoFerret 17:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I must have posted in the wrong section (here on ANRFC), sorry. Unfortunately don't remember which RFC I was looking at. NE Ent 19:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Schizoaffective disorder#Request for comment on the painting(s)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Schizoaffective disorder#Request for comment on the painting(s) (Initiated 3122 days ago on 28 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship

There are actually three virtually identical discussions that have failed consensus and should be closed:

• Talk:Watchdog.org#Independent assessments of partisanship
• Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple highly relevant, highly reliable independent third party assessments of ideology and partisanship
• Talk:Watchdog.org#Summarization of multiple third party assessments of ideology

Thank you!-- Paid Editor, but not on the Watchdog.org topic -- User:009o9^Talk 19:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

These three sections are article talk page discussions preliminary to an RfC, currently open. These discussions do not require a close and do not require a formal close. Kindly decline this request and archive. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 28#Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures

Hello, I originally initiated a discussion on the renaming of Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures a few weeks back. I can see that the discussion appears to support a renaming of the category. I am an IP user so I do not have the power to close this discussion or rename it. I initially opened the discussion under the IP address of 137.147.55.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), you will notice that has changed today because my IP address always changes, I am still the same person I just have a different IP address. Could someone please close the discussion and rename the category please? It has completed its 7 day discussion as it finished last Saturday, thank you. (120.144.180.158 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC))

Hello, for those of you who might be sceptical of whether I am the original user who opened the discussion mentioned above, 137.147.55.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I can guarantee you I am the same person my IP address often changes so that's why I look like another user. I even mentioned this to another user on their talk page when I was using that IP address - User talk:Smileguy91#Vandalism. I just wanted to make sure everyone knew I am the same user, just a different IP address. (137.147.151.25 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study

clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_military_occupations#RfC:_Including_East_Jerusalem_and_Golan_Heights

Need an uninvolved party to access the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Done AlbinoFerret 18:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#RfC:_Mother_Jones_source

Request formal, uninvolved, administrator close because the article is a biography of a living person, and is subject to discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change, and although the consensus seems sufficiently clear that a formal close might not be necessary, two involved editors have argued for variant closures. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Done AlbinoFerret 19:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2015_December_8#File:Robert_Dear_in_a_mugshot.jpg

Please disposition this discussion about a mugshot open since December 8. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

Was supposed to close on 17th, but it's still open now. Doesn't really need a formal closure but it's two days over and no one's cared. Needs to be closed ASAP. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 04:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: RfC was officially opened on Nov. 29 – with the "false" 24-hour close (and the objections to that), it is now advisable that it stay open through at least Dec. 30. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't close this early, as the earlier close was controversial. However it will need a forma close. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me, but shouldn't it be closed by an uninvolved editor? Although, it's a site-wide affecting RfC, any competent editor can close it, no? --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

As far reaching as this RFC is, as a NAC, I wouldnt touch it alone. I think a team closure would be best since its so big and what it seeks to accomplish, just to make sure we get it right. AlbinoFerret 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)