Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

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 25 October 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

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 164 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)

Talk:Yugoslavia#Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead

Can this RfC be closed. The consensus has been established and the article is already altered accordingly. However ,a formal closure would help to split this RfC with other that are unrelated. 94.28.177.61 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

On hold - The RfC has been open for less than two weeks and editors are still commenting. - MrX 17:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Yugoslavia#Should FR Yugoslavia's image be included in the lead (Initiated 48 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer

If there is consensus, it needs accurate closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer (Initiated 49 days ago on 6 October 2015)? There has been no discussion since 17 October 2015. As noted at Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting/Archive 4#Result of RfC on shooter photo, the discussion was prematurely archived by the bot and later restored from the archive to the talk page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, someone voted on the previous day, 26 October 2015. George Ho (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at it, and it looks no consensus at this point, perhaps a few more days will get some more responses. AlbinoFerret 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Five days passed, AlbinoFerret. Want to take a request? --George Ho (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Papineau (electoral district)#RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Papineau (electoral district)#RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section (Initiated 71 days ago on 14 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Hello (Adele song)#RfC: Including official video links in external links

Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RfC. Gizmocorot (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• (Initiated 27 days ago on 28 October 2015) AlbinoFerret 18:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Max_Blumenthal

Would an experienced uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this RSN discussion? (Initiated 38 days ago on 17 October 2015) Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 198#Max Blumenthal. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarifying MOS:IDENTITY in articles in which transgender individuals are mentioned in passing

Admin closure requested. These two RfCs went up on October 11. They address Wikipedia's policy toward transgender individuals, specifically which pronouns and names to use when discussing parts of their lives before their gender transition. The first addresses whether Wikipedia's current policy on biographical articles, MOS:IDENTITY, should be changed and if so to what. The second addresses whether MOS:IDENTITY should be amended to include a rule about how to refer to trans individuals in articles of which they are not the principal subject. It's been a few days since our last new comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Both were (Initiated 44 days ago on 11 October 2015). AlbinoFerret 14:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The discussions are still ongoing. This should be left open until they peter out. The issue comes up again and again, so this should run its course until exhausted, so we can be certain the discussion is as thorough as it practically can be this time. I'd advocate giving it at least a few more days, if not a week. It's more important to get a solid consensus this time than an expedient one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It had been a couple days since our last new comment when I first posted this request and it has once again been a couple days since our last comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:56, 20 November 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 28 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)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive231#109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once

"Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once". (Initiated 25 days ago on 30 October 2015) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• When this is closed it definitely needs to be closed in tandem with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers. I've read through a lot this morning and have no idea what to do; there's no strong consensus to do anything (i.e. there is zero agreement on what wording to actually use) but there is pretty strong consensus that the current situation is not sufficient for BLP. There are a lot of other factors at play here too; like how some BLP's are badly categorised anyway (which the rename may have compounded). My feeling is that we're I to close this I'd do a no-consensu o what to call the category, delete the cat under WP:BLPCAT and open a neutral RFC incorporating all of the main suggestions for category naming and inclusion criteria, to resolve this in detail. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that parallel discussion. In addition to the immediate issue, there was also a procedural disagreement about whether WP:BLPCAT claims should be decided as a BLP Incident or as a Category for Discussion. I don't know if there is an answer to that jurisdictional question but it may matter since the the two conversations had starkly different consensuses. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, policy-based decisions trump "content decisions" and suggest that the CfD was the latter, and the BLP/N decision the former. Collect (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of military occupations#How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list?

Need a consensus to be assessed please.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of military occupations#How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list? (Initiated 40 days ago on 15 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Rudolf Hess#Request for comment: Maser's theory

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rudolf Hess#Request for comment: Maser's theory (Initiated 59 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Cosby#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? (Initiated 29 days ago on 26 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:Bill Cosby#Which version to use?. Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#RfC: Should the allegations of sexual assault be mentioned in the lede? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Now archived at Talk:Bill Cosby/Archive 3#Mention of allegations in lead sentence? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Owen 'Alik Shahadah (Initiated 52 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 2#Request for Comment: Manners of death

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2015/Archive 2#Request for Comment: Manners of death (Initiated 57 days ago on 28 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing#RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish Israeli stone throwing#RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing (Initiated 59 days ago on 26 September 2015)? The opening poster wrote:

Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:African Americans#RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:African Americans#RfC: What is proper number of photos for the template in this article? (Initiated 57 days ago on 28 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Denali#RfC: Propose moratorium

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Denali#RfC: Propose moratorium (Initiated 54 days ago on 1 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:War of 1812#RfC: Should we make certain content changes in War of 1812?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:War of 1812#RfC: Should we make certain content changes in War of 1812? (Initiated 52 days ago on 3 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Superpower#RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Superpower#RfC: Ottoman Empire superpower (Initiated 48 days ago on 7 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#RFC: Is the One Million Plan relevant to the topic of this article?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#RFC: Is the One Million Plan relevant to the topic of this article? (Initiated 44 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#RfC - Character reception before release (Initiated 59 days ago on 26 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#Greatest ever vs. overrated (Initiated 54 days ago on 1 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:The Stone Roses (album)#RfC: Should this revision be retained?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:C/1980 E1#C/1980 E1

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:C/1980 E1#C/1980 E1 (Initiated 58 days ago on 27 September 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 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 50 days ago on 5 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#International reactions

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#International reactions (Initiated 44 days ago on 11 October 2015)? See the subsection Talk:2015 Ankara bombings#RfC: Are messages of condolence worthwhile inclusions to Wikipedia?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: Change our usage of "stampede" for crowd disasters to reflect word definitions and not race, regardless of sources?

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#RfC: Change our usage of "stampede" for crowd disasters to reflect word definitions and not race, regardless of sources? (Initiated 46 days ago on 9 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name (Initiated 41 days ago on 14 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks (Initiated 19 days ago on 5 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:01, 15 November 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 13 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)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Images of victims and/or perps on crime pages

Uninvolved administrator needed. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Domestic violence#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?

The WP:RfC tag recently expired. This is a contentious discussion, and an impartial administrator is needed to close it (preferably the entire "Domestic violence affects both genders and children" section it is a part of). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Closed by Alsee. Sam Walton (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 15 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)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beersheva_bus_station_shooting#Beersheva_bus_station_shooting

(Initiated 21 days ago on 3 November 2015) Would an admin please review the consensus and close this AfD? A non-admin closure was objected to and reverted a few days ago, since this is a contentious topic. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2015_Brussels_lockdown

Please assess as a possible speedy. Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)