Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply 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}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC on whether BDP should apply automatically or only after editorial consensus

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 December 2023) No activity for a couple of weeks. Request closure regarding how WP:BLP is applied once a person dies.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people#RfC to limit the inclusion of the deadname of deceased transgender or non-binary persons

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 December 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy#RFC

(Initiated 34 days ago on 13 December 2023) Been 28 days since listing, comments slowing down. Ready for closure soon. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh genocide#RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide

(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 December 2023) RfC in a contentious topic area. Malerisch (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that this will not be acted on until at least 30 days from the date that the RfC was opened, and perhaps longer if the discussion hasn't naturally died down by then. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

voorts, is there a strict rule that RfCs can only be closed after 30 days? I didn't see one in the rules above. One reason that I added this request is because I believe that the discussion has stabilized: there's only been one new !vote in the last week (or at least, that will be true in a few hours). Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a strict rule, but the only reasons to end an RfC before 30 days are if it's withdrawn, for procedural reasons, etc., not just because conversation is slowing down (and it hasn't really here; there's been a new !vote or two every few days). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The 30-day period is also not a bright-line rule, it's mentioned purely because that's the point after which Legobot will remove the {{rfc}} tag and delist the RfC statement from WP:RFC/HIST etc. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked at this with a view to closing and I've found it hard to work with. The RfC is framed as a binary choice between saying the victims were Bengalis and saying they're Bengali Hindus; but that's illogical because those options aren't mutually exclusive. Surely the article could explain that the victims were Bengalis, and particularly, disproportionately, but far from exclusively, Bengali Hindus; and that some Hindu nationalists have subsequently adopted the genocide for political purposes and framed it in ways that fit their preferred narrative. I wonder whether the locus of dispute is actually what to say in the infobox, which usually needs a one-word or two-word summary? If so then the RfC asked the wrong question.
  IMV analyzing that discussion as a closer, iff we treat the various participants as being in good faith, then the correct, policy-compliant, consensus-respecting outcome would be to say that there's no consensus about what to say in the "target" parameter in the infobox, so that parameter should be blanked, and that the lead shouldn't claim that the targets were Bengali Hindus but instead explain the true situation using more words than that.
  But unfortunately, that discussion is making my sock-sense tingle and I wouldn't be willing to say all those participants were in good faith. It's a contentious topic area with politically-motivated editors. The best way forward might be to re-run the RfC asking separate questions about the infobox and the lead paragraph. With a friendly sysop's help, you could set up the RfC on a semi-protected subpage, which I think would help to manage the disruption.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't view the dispute as primarily about the infobox—previous edit-warring was not particularly focused on the infobox, but also on the lead and the short description. Wikipedia:Requests for comment says that [i]f you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question. No one did that or raised any other issues with the RfC question, and only two editors (not including an IP) !voted for anything other than the two options presented, so I don't think that the RfC is framed poorly.

I'm not a fan of sockpuppetry or canvassing either, but I don't think that's a reason to invalidate an RfC entirely. For example, although this recent RfC in another contentious topic area also experienced canvassing, the closer wrote the following: There was concern about canvassing, evaluating the concerns including checking the edit history of many individual editors it seems likely that canvassing did in small part affect the discussion. This does not mean we can't, with care, find a rough consensus in the discussion. Template:Not a ballot says that consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. An IP editor has also pointed out this reddit discussion on the right-wing r/IndiaSpeaks subreddit, whose top comment directly links to the reddit thread mentioned by others and which received far more attention. Malerisch (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	0	6	6
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	48	17	65
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Little Pony Earth ponies

(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 December 2023) Please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:E.D. Berman#Requested move 31 December 2023

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 December 2023) Hi, and hope you're well. Usually, I'd not request closure of a move just relisted a few days ago (8 January in this case), but the discussion is starting to devolve, so it may be better to determine consensus and close before it becomes completely off-topic (and more uncivil). (WP:RMCI allows closure of most requests after a week, regardless of relists.) Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted. (Again.) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fiducia supplicans#Merge proposal

(Initiated 14 days ago on 3 January 2024) Weighted strongly towards merge, but it's not unanimous. Recent comments are mostly about what content should be included in the merge rather than specific opposition to the merge overall. As the proposer, I think I have to request someone else take care of closing the discussion despite a week elapsing and a decent consensus forming. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Gaza City#Requested move 6 January 2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 6 January 2024) A RM discussion on a CTOPS article, which needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)