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, 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 15 October 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 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 the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.
If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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.
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.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note which allows archiving of the completed request.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
RfCs
(Initiated 2012 days ago on 13 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#RfC: Clarification of OUTING? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Doing..., another user is in the process of closing this.Tvx1 12:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2008 days ago on 17 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Placement of addiction, dependence and withdrawal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Done --Brustopher (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2007 days ago on 18 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- This is huge topic affecting literally all of Wikipedia, and I think more time is needed. I've been a Wikipedia editor a dozen years, and I've only just run across this RfC. There's no deadline, and I'm not sure what it would hurt to let it run longer to give more editors a chance to weigh in on something so momentous. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
- Since it's been close to an additional month, I'll take a look at this and the related PMC discussion below in a few days if no one else beats me to it. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin: Is this still on your radar? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, honestly I thought someone else would do it. Hasn't happened. I've got an exam Friday, so I'll close this Saturday if it's still open by then. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Steven Crossin: Is this still on your radar? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Since it's been close to an additional month, I'll take a look at this and the related PMC discussion below in a few days if no one else beats me to it. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2000 days ago on 25 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at RfC on linking title to PMC. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1999 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1999 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1999 days ago on 26 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#RfC about the MEK targeting civilians in the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to ask an experienced admin take care of it. --Mhhossein talk 05:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1998 days ago on 27 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian Assange#Request for Comment - Journalist? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1997 days ago on 28 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:5G#RfC: Russian disinformation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1996 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fabiana Rosales#RfC on Juan Guaido's wife? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
On hold, I'd like a second opinion on the conclusions that I came to while I attempting to close this discussion, which I have posted below. I'm putting it inside a collapse template in case anyone wants to take a fresh look at the RfC before reading my rationale. signed, Rosguill talk 23:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
Weak consensus for D with no prejudice against reopening discussion. This was a difficult RfC to evaluate due to a variety of factors. A raw vote count is 3 for A, 4 for B, 5 for C and 5 for D, with a fair amount of overlap between A, C, and D voters. Additionally, D was the only option to gain support from both A/C and B voters (albeit only one such B voter, and a weak vote at that). Two of the votes for B are supported by very weak arguments(a plain ILIKEIT, and the bald assertion that B shows "both points of view" despite others' arguments to the contrary). Discounting these votes would change the count to be 3 v 2 v 5 v 5. The argument made by an A/C voter that B's sources do not mention Rosales appears to be addressed by the introduction of a different source; however, the argument that A and C are supported by sources stands. Ordinarily I think that this would too close to call, but the matter is further complicated by edits made by Saranoon on July 1st to add an option D, replace the wording in the lead with D, and move the former-status-quo B-wording to the article body. The fact that this change has been essentially uncontested by editors working on the article, in addition to D being the only option which has received support from A/C and B voters, leads me to conclude that there is a narrow consensus for D as a compromise over the other options. However, it's also possible that some participants in the discussion were unaware of these changes, which would undermine any consensus for which they may otherwise be evidence, so I want to clarify that any participant may reopen this discussion if they object to Saranoon's changes.
|
(Initiated 1995 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC - CoinDesk as a source? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension name
(Initiated 1995 days ago on 29 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a new file naming criteria: harmonize extension name? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1994 days ago on 30 May 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC: Propaganda? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1991 days ago on 2 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1991 days ago on 3 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hafte Tir bombing#RFC about making more natural lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1989 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess this RfC? There have been no fresh !votes for quite some time. Thanks. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 5 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Indigenous intellectual property#RfC: Should the 'A history of claims and declarations...' section be an exhaustive list?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1987 days ago on 6 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1982 days ago on 11 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bengal famine of 1943#RfC: Material from the 2019 Geophysical Research Letters study? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1981 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis#Lead image? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1981 days ago on 12 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Header text? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1974 days ago on 20 June 2019) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1973 days ago on 20 June 2019) There is a RfC at this section. Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, Cinadon36 08:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1973 days ago on 20 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC (Request for Comment) on drug trafficking aspect of Iran-Contra? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1973 days ago on 21 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Bill Shorten? Thank you!--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1973 days ago on 21 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1971 days ago on 22 June 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australia#RfC dated 23 June 2019 - Should religion be removed from the infobox?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would be happy to close this as part of a committee if there are two others who are of a similar mind. Given how extensive the discussion is, with 33 discernible opinions lodged, I think a committee close would be most appropriate as a confidence-building measure for those dissatisfied with the outcome. Chetsford (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: I'd be happy to co-close this with you. DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 sorry for my delayed response. That sounds great. How would you like to proceed? Do you maybe want to sandbox a draft closing statement I can then give you my thoughts, or we could do it the other way around? Whatever is easiest for you. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: well, I say we give it a few days for a third volunteer, if that is okay with you --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me! Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: well, I say we give it a few days for a third volunteer, if that is okay with you --DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 sorry for my delayed response. That sounds great. How would you like to proceed? Do you maybe want to sandbox a draft closing statement I can then give you my thoughts, or we could do it the other way around? Whatever is easiest for you. Chetsford (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Chetsford: I'd be happy to co-close this with you. DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1968 days ago on 26 June 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1966 days ago on 28 June 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The American Conservative? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 22:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1960 days ago on 3 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)/Archive 12#RfC: antifa and terrorism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1960 days ago on 4 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis#RfC on "himself"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1959 days ago on 5 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4#RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1958 days ago on 5 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ben Shapiro#RfC: Criticism of Shapiro's assertions about the uniqueness of science in the West? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1957 days ago on 6 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#Jeremy Corbyn vs. the Labour Party? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1957 days ago on 7 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: using "The" in song/album article titles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1957 days ago on 7 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Add 'create an article' option in the interface? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1957 days ago on 7 July 2019) I opened an RFC on July 6 on whether or not certain resigning administrators/crats should be considered under a cloud. Nobody has commented in a week and the bot archived it without closure. I am requesting closure on this. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- You opened it on 7 July, not July 6, as evidenced by this diff. Thirty days isn't up yet (it's still got the
{{rfc}}at the top), nor is it archived. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)- @Redrose64: Correction: it WAS archived after a week of no changes by the bot, but I undid the archive to allow proper closure. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1955 days ago on 8 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gatestone Institute#RfC: Description as conservative and anti-Muslim in the first line of the lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1954 days ago on 10 July 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings#RfC about info box accused = Brenton Harrison Tarrant? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1951 days ago on 13 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Taki's Magazine? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1950 days ago on 14 July 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Moratorium on "general reliability" RFCs? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1946 days ago on 17 July 2019) When the time comes, would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair#RfC about the first sentence? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note to closer - This RfC should be allowed to run its course. I have just posted it here now so there is some advance notice. The topic of the RfC was originally discussed in this first RfC which was closed without consensus being reached. For much of the time it was open, editing on this article had been before ArbCom. Following that, a second RfC was opened and then closed early so other options could also be considered. A straw poll had occurred at the same time. This third RfC began to consider all options shortly thereafter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1926 days ago on 6 August 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus? This RfC should be allowed to run its course. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 32 | 46 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 1926 days ago on 6 August 2019) Need an admin to review and close. Atsme Talk 📧 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 2148 days ago on 27 December 2018) I wasn't going to put this up for a formal close, but it was asked for back in June 2019 and now a new user has added to the survey, 7 months after it was initiated. Please close this. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2029 days ago on 26 April 2019) Would an experienced editor or administrator please review this discussion? An older discussion on the subject exists and might need to be considered as well.Tvx1 11:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2015 days ago on 10 May 2019) – Would an administrator assess this issue and take necessary action please. Ythlev (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC) @DannyS712: Stale discussions are exactly the ones that need admin involvement according to this page. Is no action to be taken against disruptive editing? Ythlev (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1997 days ago on 28 May 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#Strange Fox News story about AOC and climate change? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 03:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1992 days ago on 1 June 2019) Uninvolved admin needed for this one. Calidum 05:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 6 June 2019) Please close. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1972 days ago on 21 June 2019) A merge request on the borderline of consensus which involved two pairs of articles. A zealous editor went ahead and merged one pair but not the other, leading to an inconstancy. The second pair either needs to be merged or the first merge should be undone. --LukeSurl t c 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 1961 days ago on 2 July 2019) Please close. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 06:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)