Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

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 13 October 2024); 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. 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}}.

(Initiated 1027 days ago on 19 January 2022) Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1026 days ago on 20 January 2022) Please see also this talk page discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1023 days ago on 23 January 2022) No new discussion for a week. No resolution or clarity has emerged from the discussion. Would be useful to have an outside closer. Bondegezou (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, somebody just commented today. I'd prefer to leave a day or two to see if there are any responses to the most recent comment before closing the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder ping to Mhawk10. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline for me, and I'm not exactly sure that either of the texts have full support, so I'd prefer an experienced admin close it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more recent discussion participant has proposed to draft alternative language, so I would wait and see if that comes about. A few more days can't hurt, particularly where maintaining the status quo is the default alternative. BD2412 T 05:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1017 days ago on 29 January 2022) Nardog (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1006 days ago on 9 February 2022) Needs one uninvolved editor (or two) to determine results of the discussion. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1000 days ago on 15 February 2022) Requesting close to open RFC on another subject. CutePeach (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 998 days ago on 18 February 2022) On top of the inherently contentious nature of the proposal, there was significant controversy over whether this RfC (which failed WP:RFCNEUTRAL) is adequate to its intended aim. Have fun with this one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion's now archived. With the caveat that I participated in the discussion, I will say that I don't think it's necessary or even worthwhile to close it. It became a pre-RfC discussion which might lead to a well-formed RfC in future, but wasn't really one as written.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1004 days ago on 11 February 2022) Been open for over 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1016 days ago on 30 January 2022) Been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1115 days ago on 23 October 2021) Discussion seems stale, please close. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1049 days ago on 28 December 2021) We've had a month-long discussion on this, but it fizzled out in late January. Last reply was on 2 February 2022. Since the question at hand reappears at AfD every so often, we could probably benefit from a close. Pilaz (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1046 days ago on 31 December 2021). Request is described at #Request hatting closure. (Talk is stale, after a noconsensus-closure of an AfD). I am involved; I think this thread status is not controversional. -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1006 days ago on 9 February 2022) Another stale discussion. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1002 days ago on 13 February 2022) Please review the discussion at Talk:Justin (name). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 999 days ago on 16 February 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677, this discussion seems to have been more of a straw poll/brainstorming exercise, so I'm not sure formal closure would be very useful. (If I did close it, I would probably say something like "there is interest in several possible titles, including 2022 Canadian convoy protests, Canada convoy protests, and Freedom convoy protests, but there's no consensus for any particular proposal due largely to low participation. Further discussion is welcome since most participants aren't happy with the current title either.") My suggestion would be to choose one (and only one) of the proposed titles that gained the most support (maybe 2022 Canadian convoy protests) and propose it in a new RM, giving participants an either/or choice between the proposed title and the status quo. It might also be worthwhile just to wait a week or two: it may well be that finding consensus will become far easier once these events are safely out of the headlines. I hope this is helpful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I just started a move discussion at Talk:Canada convoy protest#Requested move 6 March 2022. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 981 days ago on 6 March 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 975 days ago on 12 March 2022) Uninvolved closure is requested. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Buidhe (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]