Wikipedia:Closure requests
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 4 September 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}}.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
(Initiated 765 days ago on 30 August 2022) This discussion was just archived from ANI, without any closure on this proposal (which has unanimous support save for the editor in question) to tban User:Plingen Plungen from Baltic States articles. No action has been taken, nor Plingen Plungen notified. Ravenswing 06:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 763 days ago on 2 September 2022) This discussion has been going on for a bit, has had decent levels of participation, and seems ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 806 days ago on 20 July 2022) – Seems like discussion has petered out. At question is WP:SHORTDESC and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 796 days ago on 30 July 2022) Won't expire for another 3-4 days EDT, but might as well get this request out of the way now per GoodDay. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note, due to the length of this RfC (currently around 510kb), it has been suggested at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Closing_time that a panel closure may be warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's almost 70,000 words. Make sure you have an entire weekend free. Can something just be closed as (TL;DR) ? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Tag expired days ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- RFCs don't have a hard deadline, and people are continuing to comment even just within the last few hours, plus there are at least a few RFCs on this page that are more stale and will need probably be closed before this one closes (though this list isn't necessarily ordered or in first-come-first-serve AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this anyone). Just be patient, it will be closed in due time. Andre🚐 20:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is likely close to, if not exceeding, six hundred kilobytes. It needs to be closed. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is no size limit nor a WP:DEADLINE nor is the discussion stale since several new comments were added today, so, please be patient. It will not close any faster by complaining about it. It's a very large and unenviable task to close it that will take a lot of heavy, not fun, work from several volunteers. It is not proper to keep poking about it. Just forget about it and go away, and eventually, you'll wake up one day to find someone has written a lengthy additional bunch of kilobytes on what they thought of the whole shebang. Consensus is a process, and several voices that have just joined the RFC are valued, long-time contributors. Andre🚐 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- You’re only saying that because comments are beginning to shift into your favor. The longer the discussion becomes, the more time it takes to sift through the arguments. They can’t reasonably close an RFC where people are still commenting, as those comments also need to be taken into account. Precedent for closing toccomments is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), where it was closed from comments on November 29, and not formally closed until December 1. This should go the same way. They even removed 8kB worth of discussion. AFDs also don’t have a hard deadline. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's not proper to read the tea leaves. The recent comments are just as valid as the earlier comments, and sometimes discussions do shift over time, that is how it works. It is typical for discussions to be closed when they are stale, and everyone has had a chance, and not arbitrarily closed based on a clock. Trust that it will be closed soon and adjudicated fairly. AFDs and RFCs are not exactly the same, though both are consensus- and valid-argument-governed discussions. Andre🚐 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- You’re only saying that because comments are beginning to shift into your favor. The longer the discussion becomes, the more time it takes to sift through the arguments. They can’t reasonably close an RFC where people are still commenting, as those comments also need to be taken into account. Precedent for closing toccomments is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), where it was closed from comments on November 29, and not formally closed until December 1. This should go the same way. They even removed 8kB worth of discussion. AFDs also don’t have a hard deadline. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- There is no size limit nor a WP:DEADLINE nor is the discussion stale since several new comments were added today, so, please be patient. It will not close any faster by complaining about it. It's a very large and unenviable task to close it that will take a lot of heavy, not fun, work from several volunteers. It is not proper to keep poking about it. Just forget about it and go away, and eventually, you'll wake up one day to find someone has written a lengthy additional bunch of kilobytes on what they thought of the whole shebang. Consensus is a process, and several voices that have just joined the RFC are valued, long-time contributors. Andre🚐 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is likely close to, if not exceeding, six hundred kilobytes. It needs to be closed. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Willing to be in the panel but wise to have at least a couple of admins. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think it wise to have a closing panel, and mostly or all admins is best. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support closing panel be minimum 3 admins Andre🚐 22:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 791 days ago on 5 August 2022) — Despite my own involvement in this RfC, this is an obvious closure since consensus is near-unanimous on deprecating this site. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 785 days ago on 11 August 2022) – Would request closure of the above RfC from an uninvolved editor. Their has been a fair few comments however consensus is not clear with lots of divergent views. Note that I am making this request on behalf of the initiator of the RfC, @Gitz6666: who agrees with this request, refer discussion on his Talkpage. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 767 days ago on 28 August 2022) – This RfC is not very old, but consensus is very clear. An editor (Hob Gadling) has already mentioned WP:SNOW, but as the initiator I feel uncomfortable in closing it myself. Note: This had previously been archived by mistake, because I had messed up formatting, so here it is again. –LordPickleII (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 5 | 36 | 0 | 41 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 8 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 991 days ago on 17 January 2022) Conversation finished in March and has since been archived - some involved users have differing views on whether a consensus has been reached (and what that consensus is), which has since resulted in further disagreements on affected article pages. Would be good to have an outside take, if possible given the archived nature of the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe that a non-procedural close is suitable here; for a disputed proposal that suggests modifying WP:PAG, a formal discussion is needed.BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your thoughts on the discussion don't preclude it from being closed. Turnagra (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 977 days ago on 30 January 2022) Seems to have a consensus, ongoing for a while. 2601:185:8300:42EF:6149:B579:AF6A:2807 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 933 days ago on 16 March 2022) Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 926 days ago on 23 March 2022) No comments since May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14#Proposal to update the project's RS guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 876 days ago on 12 May 2022) No comments since May. Involved editors do not seem to have any interest in addressing GAR issues present and have not commented in the GAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 803 days ago on 24 July 2022) Given that this requested move already had one closure reversed nearly two weeks ago, it could probably do with having another uninvolved administrator take a look. Graham (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)