Wikipedia:Closure requests

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

Shortcuts

The Closure requests 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 appears 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 March 2023); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. 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 a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.

A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

Other areas tracking old discussions[edit]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC on draftifying a subset of mass-created Olympian microstubs[edit]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 2 March 2023) No !votes in almost a week, can probably be closed now. BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is a consensus in favor of this proposal I ask that the closer does not immediately implement it - there is some work that I need to do with the categories, as I intended to convert them to draft categories. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(comment from involved editor) This discussion has continued to get !votes, and as such I feel closure is inappropriate at this time. casualdejekyll 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There have only been three !votes in the past week and I think consensus is clear; I don't think we need to wait much longer. BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Timurid_Empire#RfC_about_the_use_of_"Persianate"[edit]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 10 March 2023) – The RfC template has now been removed after 30 days. Could someone kindly close the discussion? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:Infobox Indian state or territory#RFC : whether to remove some parameters or not[edit]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 15 March 2023) The RFC has expired and currently has no comments from any uninvolved editors since it was created. Prarambh20 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 19 March 2023) Requested as this RFC has multiple proposals, most of which would clarify or modify policy. There is fairly clear consensus on some proposals, unclear on others. There hasn't been any discussion or new votes on the original proposals in several days. There has been recent discussion on subsequently added proposals, however, these proposals are workshopping proposals for a future RFC, not requesting policy modification. Dave (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your characterization of the additional proposals is incorrect; they are not workshopping for a future RfC, they are attempting to determine a consensus on several closely related questions and if there is a consensus for them would result in the consensus being reflected in notability guidelines.

The closer may also want to consider the following talk page discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources#Concerns about inappropriate off-wiki collaboration and covert canvassing. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to still be getting !votes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Curiously enough, there was a spike in activity shortly after I posted the close request above. Granted 2 days does not a trend make, but activity level seems to be going down again. I agree it may be wise to give it a few more days to confirm the trend is declining. I don't think it will ever completely stop as it appears there's some pretty deep convictions on both sides of the various debates, hence the need for a 3rd party to judge any consensus or lack of. Note, I'm not the only one saying this, there's now a dedicated section of the RFC making a similar argument. Dave (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:No original research#RfC on clarification of WP:CALC for costliest tornadoes[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 19 March 2023)

Comments multiple for all three options. Went stale 11 days after RfC opened. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Pornography addiction#Obsolete scientific theory RFC[edit]

(Initiated 24 days ago on 28 March 2023)

Mostly stale. Another editor suggested closing it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:List of ports in England and Wales#RFC: Determining page scope[edit]

(Initiated 24 days ago on 28 March 2023) Clear majority consensus for move to List of ports in Great Britain. Majority consensus for List of ports and harbours in Northern Ireland, List of ports and harbours in Scotland and List of ports and harbours in Wales not to be affected. No additional views have been added for or against since 12 April 2023. Other editor preferred neutral closure of RFC. Titus Gold (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:Australian elections#RfC - Including plebiscites under the referendums header[edit]

(Initiated 21 days ago on 31 March 2023) Hasn't been any reply in 9 days ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:2023 Nashville school shooting#RFC: Should the perpetrator be subject to WP:BLP extension per WP:BDP?[edit]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 April 2023) – RFC was started recently, but is almost a clear WP:SNOW close. I'm involved and do not wish to make an involved pre-mature RFC close, so inviting any uninvolved editors to check out the discussion and make the assessment themselves.

Any discussions that get resolved will go some way towards reducing overall battleground behaviour on talk + reducing WP:Wikilawyering here, hence the request. Soni (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't typically snow close RFC's, especially after only three days. And to say the responses have been... nuanced, is an understatement. We should leave it open for at least a week so anyone that was sent a random request has an opportunity to actually consider and respond... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
V	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	3	30	77	110
TfD	0	0	4	4
MfD	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	3	14	17
AfD	0	0	4	4

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_25#Category:Rulers[edit]

(Initiated 76 days ago on 4 February 2023) Very complicated CfD with many wall of text posts. Relisted twice, and no participation since March 7. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this should be closed yet because the discussion simply isn't over yet, per the comment added on 9 April - it's just happening on different pages. Closing this discussion for either keep or delete would create a massive mess of the subcategories that needs to be worked out first before this discussion can be closed. It's unusual for an XfD to go on for so long, yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be closed prematurely. casualdejekyll 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_20#Category:Rulers_of_Toungoo[edit]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 4 March 2023) No participation since last relist. Closure of this discussion will require expertise in Burmese history, as not all participants agree on whether the categories are redundant. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 102#Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: section on Ukrainian forces[edit]

(Initiated 121 days ago on 21 December 2022) Please review this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done, The linked section has now been archived, and has no contributions since January 2023. It doesn't need a formal close JeffUK 17:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Constitution of the United States#A brief survey of the available scholarship[edit]

(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 March 2023) – I can't close because I am involved. Freoh has been admonished to drop the WP:STICK and Levivich has apparently retired. Would someone uninvolved please close this discussion that has simmered for a long time across multiple sections of the talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DIYeditor @Freoh As an uninvolved editor I'm finding it impossible to understand what is supposed to be 'closed' here. "A brief survey of the available scholarship" is not a proposal that need consensus, it's just a literature review. I think if you could propose some concrete actions, or provide a summary there of what actions are being proposed? Listing the 'multiple sections of the talk page' that you think are all involved in this discussion would help too. JeffUK 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a summary at Talk:Constitution of the United States § A summary of the ongoing dispute. — Freoh 01:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JeffUK, there is no dispute, the discussion should be quickly closed as 'oppose'. This book-length discussion, which was continued over and over after each consensus to oppose had been reached, is now being relitigated in a new "Summary" section which is just a rehash of already decided material. The extremely important sourcing and discussion points by Allreet and Gwillhickers ably countered the sought-for changes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading[edit]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Current events Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards