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.
Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before 11 April 2024); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after 4 May 2024) except in the case of WP:SNOW.
Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.
- Notes about closing
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.
Requests for closure
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#RfC_on_pronouns_throughout_life
This RFC, triggered by the Manning controversy, has now been running for 1 month and is not receiving any new comments. Because of its sensitivity, I suggest that it is given a similar level of care to the Manning controversy itself. – Smyth\talk 09:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- A month after the original request, it seems the RfC has attracted exactly two more comments. Please could someone step up to the plate here (I participated in the discussion so cannot do so myself). Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I have the votes at around 25 Keep, 33 Delete and 10 Change if we account for the second preferences of those who voted to change we have 29 Keep, 38 Delete (discounting those who didn't have a second preference which weren't many). A large number of people have suggested a possible problem with just removing it, as it leaves ambiguity in it's place. To that end, my assessment of the arguments from both sides suggests that users agree that the order of preference (for lack of a better phrase) goes in this order:
- Wording as it currently stands
- Subject's current personal preference (especially expressed in self-published sources or long quotations for example)
- Where there are a large number of recent mainstream reliable sources using the opposite terms to the person's current self-identified gender, the terms of the gender in those reliable sources may be used in the same context (such as referring to the subject's early life).
- Where the person was significantly involved in a notable, significant event they may be referred to by the gender they identified with at the time to avoid confusion (this is especially the case in articles about the event/organisation/etc rather than a biography)
Before I get close to solve it could other please weigh in and let me know what they think about that assessment? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your number 3 seems to be incomplete. And is the un-numbered bullet point supposed to be a number 4, or connected to number 3, or what?
- I'd also like to see some clarity on the question of what should happen to guidelines which had consensus to be enshrined as guidelines at some point in the past, but whose support later fell to such an extent that they would not be so enshrined if they were proposed now. I gave my own opinion about that here and here (second paragraph), but perhaps others are aware of some precedents that can guide us.
- Thanks for taking the trouble to help with this difficult situation! – Smyth\talk 11:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Clarified number 3, hopefully enough to make it clearer. I used a bullet point because I wasn't really sure if it should be included in the numbered list or be a stand-alone provision, what do you and others think? If it should be part of the list where should it go in the 'order'?
- This is one of the things about people saying once a rule is there it's hard to get rid of, consensus is needed to make something a policy/guideline and consensus is needed for it not to be a policy/guideline anymore - that's my understanding, anyone else?
- No worries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry Callanecc, I don't quite understand what you mean by "the order of preference". Do you mean that 1 has the most support, followed by 2 and then 3, and therefore you it should be closed with no change to the guideline? Or do you mean that there is consensus for 2 and 3 as exceptions to 1? If the latter, I would suggest that there is a consensus for 2 but not for 3. Neljack (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry I intended the latter. Having another look through the discussion, there was some discussion of using what's in current sources when that relates to past significant events. However I take your point that there probably isn't enough discussion and agreement to warrant changing the guideline to reflect it.
- I'll implement the above in the next hour or so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?
This RfC was started on September 6h. The tag for this RfC seems to have been deleted. Can an admin please close? Thanks. GabrielF (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 146#MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign (initiated 14 September 2013)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Talk:Main Page/Archive 177#Main page redesign. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Badge of 723 Communication Squadron.jpg
This non-free content review needs an experienced closer. Discussion commenced on 27 June and there's been no new comments added since 19 August. Warning: Lotsa plenty of reading here. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Massacres_of_Albanians_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Merge
It seems that the content of this article has already been presented within Serbia_in_the_Balkan_Wars#Massacres. Still, this is controversial case which needs to be closed by administrator who is not involved.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#RfC:_What_qualifies.3F
The discussion was closed by a non admin who is well known for holding views decidedly outside of the mainstream Wikipedia community, with a conclusion that I do not think accurately reflects the discussion and policies presented. [1] I would request a non involved Admin review. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive817#Matthew Bryden (initiated 18 October 2013)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban of MiddayExpress (among other proposals). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Murray Rothbard#Images in article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Murray Rothbard#Images in article (initiated 28 September 2013; see the RfC at the subsection Talk:Murray Rothbard#Photo survey)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- This has not been formatted or announced as an RfC and I doubt that it has received much attention. I suggest that, if OP wishes to achieve a lasting and definitive consensus on this that it be restated and posted as appopriate in the form of an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- The RfC tag was added by Binksternet (talk · contribs) on 3 October 2013, modified by Legobot (talk · contribs) on 3 October 2013 and removed by Legobot on 1 November 2013. Although the section header does not have "RfC" in its title, this is not required for the discussion to be listed as an RfC. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Kosovo#RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kosovo#RfC: Serbian register vs Serbo-Croatian language on Kosovo? (initiated 19 July 2013)? See this 22 October 2013 comment by the RfC initiator who wants to proceed with the proposal but has not done so. An assessment of the consensus by an uninvolved editor would be helpful. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Throffer#Merge with Extortion and Talk:Throffer#Carrot and Stick
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Throffer#Merge with Extortion (initiated 23 September 2013) and Talk:Throffer#Carrot and Stick (initiated 29 September 2013)? The opening poster of the first section wrote:
This so-called Good Article is really just a variant on extortion, and should be an item of minor note within that article, if it exists at all.
The opening poster of the section section wrote:
Should throffer be merged into carrot and stick?
The second merge discussion was listed as an RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conceptualization (information science)#RfC: Inclusion of a figure in the article Conceptualization (information science) (initiated 26 August 2013)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Ten Lost Tribes#RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section?
Requesting an uninvolved person to close the discussion at Talk:Ten Lost Tribes#RfC: Should block quotes be included in the lead section?. The consensus appears clear, but a formal closure may be helpful in this case. It has been almost a week since the last comment. Thank you, Bahooka (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
. Closed byJreferee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). -- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)- Why was this closed so soon? No BLP violations so it can surely run the 30 days? Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I closed it based on Bahooka's request above and reopened per your reasoning on my talk page.[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added) I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear. That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- While I acknowledge an editors right to request it remain open. I don't find any fault in Bahooka's close as RfC's are not required to be open for 30 days and may be closed if inactive for some time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bahooka and Keithbob. The RfC was initiated on 25 October 2013, and Jreferee closed the RfC on 6 November 2013.
12 days had elapsed and nearly a week had passed without further comment.
WP:SNOW was applicable: There was a clear consensus by the time Jreferee closed the RfC against the inclusion of the blockquote in the lead.
Had the discussion not been an RfC, no one would have objected to an uninvolved editor assessing the consensus earlier than 30 days. An RfC should not grant clearly opposed content the right to stay in the article for the full 30 days when the consensus is clear.
There is precedent for early RfC closes per WP:SNOW: see this close of Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson and this close of Mayors in Puerto Rico for two examples. Cunard (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Bahooka and Keithbob. The RfC was initiated on 25 October 2013, and Jreferee closed the RfC on 6 November 2013.
- While I acknowledge an editors right to request it remain open. I don't find any fault in Bahooka's close as RfC's are not required to be open for 30 days and may be closed if inactive for some time.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping the RfC open for the full 30-day default period, but I did want to explain my reasoning so there won't be any concerns about good faith. I tried to read the RfC page very carefully to make sure I did it correctly. Regarding closure, it states that "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." (emphasis added) I knew the default period had not ended, but interest in making comments had waned (a week had passed since the last one) and the consensus seemed clear. That was my rationale, but we can revisit on 11/25. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- I closed it based on Bahooka's request above and reopened per your reasoning on my talk page.[2] -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why was this closed so soon? No BLP violations so it can surely run the 30 days? Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2013 October
There are two MRVs from October where discussion has gone fairly stale, and they're likely ready for closes. I'm afraid they won't be easy closes, or someone else would've done them already! --BDD (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy#RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?
I'm looking for an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close and sum up the consensus of this RfC, which asks whether the proposal should become policy. The RfC was opened on 14 October so the end of the 30-day period is approaching. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- The related proposal, Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal, which was opened on the same day (14 October) also needs to be closed and summed up. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:A Bug's Life#Omit tracklist?
I need an administrator to conclude the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Template talk:non-free review#RfC: Should the non-free review template be added to articles?
The RFC on template use started a month ago. If consensus has reached, close it. --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Talk:The Story of a Small Town
Recent proposal is located at the bottom of the talkpage. --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NFCR open discussions
We need some uninvolved admin to hopped over to WP:NFCR if you have some free time, as there are many discussions over a month old that should be closed:
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus performing at the 2013 MTV Video Music Awards.jpg
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#NFL on Fox
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#NFL on CBS
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Carlos-Smith.jpg
- Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Shooting of Trayvon Martin
There are also multiple other discussion that can be safely closed as they are past the 7-day mark. Please take a moment to help out, even if it is just for one discussion when you have some time. Thanks. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)