Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 4 August 2015); 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


MfD backlog[edit]

Miscellany for deletion also has a number of open discussions, going back to late July. Most are non-controversial requests to delete old userspace drafts. Please see the list at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Old_business. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox locomotive#Styling into regular infobox[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Final closure of RHB100 - GPS[edit]


  • The virtually unanimous consensus a week or two ago to deprecate the huge banner version of the ENGVAR templates (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Proposal to deprecate Template:English variant notice) is being forum-shopped in an "RFC" that is not actually an RFC, at WP:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should Template:English variant notice be deprecated? (and WP:VPPRO wouldn't even be the right venue for such a discussion anyway; it would be WP:VPPOL, since this is not a proposal, but is an out-of-process attempt to override consensus at a WP:POLICY (i.e. policy or guideline) in favor of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS nebulously hovering around some template talk pages, of templates for which there was never a consensus to begin with at MOS for "enforcing" MOS:ENGVAR in the heavy-handed manner these banner templates do plastered across the tops of article talk pages and in article and talk page editnotices, so that any editor there is constantly brow-beaten with them; many of the ENGVAR assertions in question have not been subject to a consensus discussion at all, and do not have strong national ties, thus these banners are a WP:OWN problem; these are only some of the reasons they were deprecated).

    I don't know what the intent/motivation is (not being a mind-reader), though I note that I announced a day or two ago that I was working on the WP:TFD for these and a categorization merger plan (the banner templates at issue do not categorize quite the same way as the unobtrusive mainspace equivalents of the banner versions). This pseudo-RFC, pseudo-proposal does not appear to have understood anything in the previous discussion, but is an odd "we need ENGVAR templates!" overreaction. The proper next venue is WP:TFD, at which seen entries in the next day or two (there are some complications to work out, even two of the template are not ENGVAR templates at all, but usurping them for non-MOS purposes to assert a form of "specialized style"; so some proposals for what to do with their underlying intent will need to be worked in).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

    PS: The poster of this not-RfC has given out 30 or so "notices" about the VPPRO discussion, to (according to its wording) anyone who has "had some involvement with" the metatemplate in question (i.e. people who have edited it, i.e. people who are likely to be in favor of it, but who may have not paid attention to it in years much less participated in the recent consensus discussion). WT:MOS was not notified. This appears to be WP:CANVASSING.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  14:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to this at length at the moment, but I can give a quick statement. I only notified people already "involved" to a certain extent. I notified people that participated in the last deletion discussion (which is part of what the proposal suggests, and basically what it does in essence even if it isn't deleted) Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 7#Varieties of English templates, I notified everyone that participated in the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 167#Sub-national varieties of English? first discussion, those currently in the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:AmericanEnglish discussion where the issue was raised, and a handful of people to recently edit the templates in question. I also posted at the location of the first discussion WT:MOS#Request for comment: Deprecation of the Template:English variant notice, and the talk page of the metatemplate in question. I was not aware of the discussion when it took place on the MoS talk page and I don't call the 4 supports in that archive a proper consensus for any issue this big; it was also never formally closed/evaluated. Both this RfC and the Notices I sent out were neutral, and I feel that I was within Wikipedia:Canvassing#WP:APPNOTE. My goal is to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the accusation of canvassing is merited. The poster of the second RfC sent out notices even to people who voted for deprecation in the first RfC, including SMcCandlish, who is known to be a vocal and energetic defender of his views. Seems like reasonably balanced publicization to me.
The issue boils down to this: "We didn't have consensus because I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to rerun an RfC, but "We didn't have consensus because not enough people knew about the discussion" is. Did enough people know about the first discussion? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course they did. MOS is one of the most watchlisted pages on the entire system and it is the obvious, normal venue for MoS-related discussions, including MOS:ENGVAR ones. The discussion for what to do about the templates, since deprecation, like how to merge their categorization functions, is a WP:TFD matter, and the TfD was already announced (in multiple places, including this very page) as in-preparation. A move that would simultaneously overturn the perfectly valid consensus discussion at WT:MOS, and thwart the upcoming TfD, is out-of-process "panic" about the deprecation notice. It should be hatted with {{Discussion top}}, and normal TfD process should proceed. If someone wants to object to the merging and eventual deletion of the banner version of these templates, they can do so at the TfD, per standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Four supports in a subsection of a discussion on a different issue is a valid consensus for the deprecation of templates that appear on 10,000+ pages? Notification about the the discussion was not even posted at the talk page of the metatemplate in question (let alone those of all the templates affected). If it was simply the deletion in question, TFD would be the appropriate forum. It isn't. Deprecation (while close to deletion in some senses) is the concern of the RfC. The only reason I can think of to be opposed to a larger discussion, with the appropriate parts of the community more properly notified, is that the proper consensus might be different.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
A discussion open long enough to be archived because there was no further interest in commenting on it, on one of the most-watchlisted pages on the entire system, that is actually the correct venue for ENGVAR-related matters, and clearly labeled that it was a proposal to deprecate this stuff, yes, that is sufficient. Anyone working on ENGVAR templates should be following the MOS (i.e. ENGVAR) page (how do they even know what they're implementing if they're not?), and this was a WP:POLICY discussion about whether ENGVAR should be "enforced" in a manner anything like this, not about template coding matters. It is headed next to TfD ("D" stands for "discussion" not "deletion") where everyone watching the template will get notification of the template-specific TfD discussion. The outcome of that discussion could be any number of things, including to rescope and redocument, to delete, to overturn the MOS discussion (maybe to come up with a narrower solution to the issues raised), to merge the other way around, or no consensus, or whatever. A "help save a template I like" WP:PARENT exercise at VP is just heat, not light. All you've done is whipped up a few panicky "huh?" opposes who clearly did not digest and understand the deprecation discussion. They're objections will be factored into the TfD discussion, so I guess I should thank you in a roundabout way. This will go to TfD discussion where it belongs shortly enough. The fact that this heavy-handed banner is used on so many pages without any consensus being found at more than a tiny handful of those articles' talk pages, has a lot to do with why this template was deprecated. That it has no consensus to be used in the majority of places it has been used is easily demonstrated by removing it from a bunch of talk pages, editnotices, etc., to which it has been added without a discussion indicating consensus to do so, and see how many times you get reverted (for me so far: zero). In the process of deprecation-tagging the templates, no one has responded other than you, days after the fact. Clearly the community totally WP:DGAFs about these darned things.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  21:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Competence and civility issues with Koala15 (Initiated 53 days ago on 12 July 2015)? A close is requested in the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Closure requested .... Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Already done by Ritchie333. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page.[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ideloctober refuses to read or learn about Wikipedia Policy over on the Frankfurt School talk page. (Initiated 27 days ago on 7 August 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves[edit]

Requested moves backlog

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)

Update: situation is much improved, but there's still a six-week backlog of move requests. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As of late July 2015, the backlog is still about one month (and some of the ones in the backlog should actually be easy closes; others?... not so much). --IJBall (contribstalk) 06:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015[edit]

Would anyone like to take a shot at closing Talk:Revision control#Requested move 13 July 2015? It's been open for over a month now. Some level of knowledge about computer science/software(?) might be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Anybody? Jenks24 (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Bot requests#RfC: Remove persondata practical steps[edit]

Removal of wikipedia:persondata by bot: the RfC ran for 30 days, not sure what can be concluded at the end of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 90 days ago on 5 June 2015)

Talk:Microsoft Surface#Surface ≠ Surface RT[edit]

The whole discussion has turned into a trench warfare. TheHoax (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 85 days ago on 10 June 2015)

This discussion was archive boxed on July 14 after an RfC was opened seeking more input on the topic, though that hasn't had any new input in about 4 days and so probably could be closed. PaleAqua (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 52 days ago on 13 July 2015)
Ping. It has been quite a while now without new discussion. A close by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. PaleAqua (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
We have pretty much a consensus of all save one, a formal close here would probably help against a repeat of an earlier edit war. See in particular Talk:Microsoft Surface#Reaching Consensus. This should be an easy close at this point; especially concerning the use of the disambiguated "Surface (first generation)" in prose. PaleAqua (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I see that there are two motions, both opened on 25th of August. One of them had active discussion three days ago, so I don't think this one's ready to flip. Samsara 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Borodino#RfC: Should the article infobox contain the result "French Pyrrhic Victory" and Talk:Battle of Borodino#RFC redux; alternative proposal (Initiated 67 days ago on 28 June 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Sport season articles and flag use for club nationality? Thanks, Tvx1 11:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 60 days ago on 5 July 2015)

Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#RfC: How should we classify Baahubali[edit]

We need a close. People keep reverting all attempts to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 39 days ago on 26 July 2015)


Should be easy, despite the length. This is covered (generally) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ#Specialized and is a perennial dispute at MOS, as shown by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive index binary prefixes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (Initiated 70 days ago on 25 June 2015)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification[edit]

Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. (Initiated 93 days ago on 2 June 2015) Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Not doneMOS:IDENTITY (and related guidance like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines#How to write about transgender, non-binary, and intersex people) was updated after the initiation of the RfC, with enough support by the participants in that VPP discussion, making a formal closure to the original VPP discussion a superfluous exercise, leave alone whether it would still be possible to provide an adequate closure with many early comments in that discussion referring to the former wording of the MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree, I think a close is warranted, and MOS:IDENTITY should be updated to reflect the consensus (if it is determined that there is one) at the RfC.Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I also think a close is warranted owing to the extensive discussion. The consensus in the discussion should be recorded by an RfC close and the guideline updated if it differs from the consensus at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I concur a close is needed, and this would be significant enough it would need an admin closure, preferably by a panel. Francis Schonken is not an admin and his "Not done" is just an expression of what he's not doing. Tweaks to MOS:IDENTITY while that huge RfC was open about MOS:IDENTITY cannot (except by curious accident) represent consensus, but were out-of-process. Commenters at the RfC would have been taking such moves into consideration while commenting anyway (I know I was). It cannot be that an RfC can be WP:GAMEd and mooted by rushing to change the wording one-sidedly while that very wording is under discussion, or we'd simply scrap the whole RfC system as useless.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Transhumanist politics#RfC: How should the Transhumanist Party be described? (Initiated 57 days ago on 8 July 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Would an uninvolved admin please assess this? It has been open since 10 August 2015. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)(Initiated 24 days ago on 10 August 2015)

Template talk:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map#Controversial edit by LightandDark2000 - color of Hezbollah[edit]

(Initiated 79 days ago on 16 June 2015)

  • An uninvolved administrator is requested to close discussion concerning belligerent colors in Lebanese insurgency map. It seems all involved parties expressed their opinions, but there is no agreement for implementation - administrator ruling to close this would really help to avoid further disputes.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


Would an uninvolved admin please close this. Its rather long. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, some admin close this, its to the point that there is rehash and rehash going on with nothing new in days. Its already past the 7 days most sections on WP:AN/I are closed by. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 01:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 26#Template:Doctor Who episode list[edit]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 26 July 2015)
No discussion in over a month. Template creator attempted closure on 23 August. A non-admin closure was reverted today in favour of uninvolved admin closure today.[1] --AussieLegend () 13:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)