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.
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 closure is 30 days (opened on or before 24 April 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 an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree 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.
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.
Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{close}} or {{done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.
Requests for closure
Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Template talk:Citation/Archive 7#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:
- Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
- Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
- Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
- MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
- Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)
Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
- User talk:Hobit#Question re: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
- User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools#RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?
Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)
Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt) 2. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates? (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipediocracy doxxing
This discussion (in particular, the proposal for a site ban) has run its course and should be closed. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 20:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do not close until (at least) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary is concluded. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)- The SPI is finished now, and this can be closed by an uninvolved administrator any time now. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:Songs written by Trackmasters
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:Disney's Snow White characters
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:LGBT Roman Catholics
Even though this from over a month ago, there are still a couple of discussions here that haven't been closed yet. JDDJS (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI "Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed"
This has just about run its course and I am requesting a formal statement of intent from Sitush at the ANI (at this point he tells people to look at his talk page). So at some point I'd like a formal close. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Is Westeros.org a suitable source for this content?
This content dispute has been going on since April and the outcome will probably affect all Game of Thrones episode articles. The RfC covers two issues: 1) Does the web site Westeros.org fit the expert source criteria given at WP:SPS and 2) is the disputed sentence non-trivial enough to include in the article regardless of how it is sourced? If you address both issues in your summary, there will (hopefully) not be anything left for the participants to fight over. Seven Eight editors have logged their responses to this RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Off-topic responses covered. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oathkeeper#RfC: Blog source--usable for facts? (initiated 12 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Not necessary. This RfC timed out with all participants in agreement about what it meant. Please use any energy on the the RfC for which closure was requested. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you might wish to recount. There was significant dissent as to the viability of the content. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Jack, this is the Ana Carol RfC. All participants, including the person who originally proposed using the blog source (myself), are in agreement not to use it. No one's contesting that that was the conclusion of the RfC. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Ahh, I see. Sorry, you've been forum-shopping at so many noticeboards that I frankly lost track. Yes, there was complete agreement not to use it at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well not complete but a clear majority and a conclusion by which all participants are willing to abide. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right; we weren't going to use it. So, let's go ahead and close that out. Sorry for presuming it was yet another misadventure on your part. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think you might wish to recount. There was significant dissent as to the viability of the content. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ronn Torossian#RFC: mention of commentary in lead (initiated 4 August 2014)? Please consider Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance of political commentary in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Fields Medal#Table format
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fields Medal#Table format (initiated 15 August 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Fields Medal#RFC (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mesrop Mashtots#RfC for wording in the lead regarding the Georgian and Albanian alphabet (initiated 6 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the lede contain the following phrase:
He was also, according to a number of scholars and contemporaneous Armenian sources, the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Wellons (initiated 7 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Shelley Moore Capito's maiden name was "Shelley Wellons Moore". Is "Wellons" still a middle name for her (and therefore should be included in the full name provided in the intro to her bio)?
Please consider the earlier discussion Talk:Shelley Moore Capito#Middle name in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joni Ernst#RfC: Is this quote by Joni Ernst relevant for her bio? (initiated 28 August 2014)? The last comment was made 9 September 2014. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown/Archive 14#Robbery in lede RFC (initiated 2 September 2014) and Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#RfC: Should article mention Brown had no (adult) criminal record? (initiated 8 September 2014)? WP:SNOW may be applicable for both discussions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? (initiated 9 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar? If so, does this edit by JMJimmy help readers understand that ISO 8601 uses the Gregorian calender, or hinder that understanding? If the Gregorian calendar is used, is the wording as of 7 August 2014 (UT), JMJimmy's wording, or some other wording best?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Creation Museum#RfC A. A. Gill (initiated 17 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship (initiated 3 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Artpop#"Manicure" vs. "MANiCURE" (initiated 26 June 2014)? See the subsection Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization? (initiated 10 August 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Involved editor here. I don't believe formal closure is necessary. This RfC was almost unanimous and the text has been stable on this issue for weeks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes#RfC: Inclusion of Simpsons Movie (initiated 22 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote: "Should The Simpsons Movie be included in this list of episodes?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict#RfC: Hamas claims in the infobox (initiated 30 August 2014)? An editor wrote: "This thread was archived by a bot. I have unarchived it. Someone should close it and judge consensus." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republican Party (United States)#More recent progressive wing (initiated 11 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote in the subsection Talk:Republican Party (United States)#Request for comments (initiated 17 August 2014):
Should the article include the names of prominent Republicans subsequent to 1976 who have been openly critical of the GOP because they believe the Party leadership's views are too far to the right? If so, how should they be described?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)#RfC: Is the profanity in the article relevant? (initiated 13 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
The current version of the article uses very coarse language in the section dealing with social reactions to the match. The text at present is the following:
- Current Text: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
I propose that this section should be written in a more professional tone, and consider the following an improvement:
- Proposal: "Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several of these videos were transferred to their network with sexually suggestive titles."
Please let us know which of these two options are better and why.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject Biography#RfC: BDP in Biography template (initiated 20 August 2014)? The opening poster wrote:
Should the Biography template be adjusted to include the "bdp=" parameter?
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2014 September#Budweiser (initiated 9 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/30 SW (initiated 26 August 2014)? The last comment was made 31 August 2014.
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56 (initiated 28 July 2014)?
The instructions for closing user conduct RfCs are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. After closing the RfC, please add the RfC to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:2014–15 Glossop North End A.F.C. season (initiated 10 September 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 14#Category:Literature by (X) women? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 20#Category:Fish of Great Britain? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review
Would an admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive264#Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review (initiated 25 August 2014)? Based on the user's contributions, the user has a spent a lot of time at IPhone 6. Although there is no consensus for a topic ban, would an admin let the user know about the concerns the community expressed in the discussion and give a final warning that further disruption will result in a block? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)