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 comment is 30 days (opened on or before 1 May 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
Requests for comment
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 3050 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21#The word "like"
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 3033 days ago on 10 February 2016)
- This is now located in an archive at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 21. Someone willing to dig into one of the lamest contentious discussions of all time should assess whether it's worth dragging out of an archive or not. ~ RobTalk 13:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since numerous editors considered the discussion worth discussion, and since George Ho wants an accurate summary of the discussion, I agree with George Ho's request for closure. That some editors consider it "lame" does not detract from other editors' considering it important and worthy of closure (evidenced by the extensive, passionate discussion).
Because the discussion has been archived, there are two methods to implement the close: (i) Move the discussion back to the talk page and close it and (ii) Close the discussion, keeping it in the talk page archive, and announce the result on the talk page. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Since numerous editors considered the discussion worth discussion, and since George Ho wants an accurate summary of the discussion, I agree with George Ho's request for closure. That some editors consider it "lame" does not detract from other editors' considering it important and worthy of closure (evidenced by the extensive, passionate discussion).
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 3028 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Which version to go with?
This RfC recently expired. Would be good to get an official close on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC: Place of birth in Infobox (initiated on 17 February 2016)? The original RfC (initiated on 13 January 2016) was closed improperly and overturned here. The subsequent RfC was bot-removed as expired on 18 March 2016. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Daicaregos. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material")
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Irving#RfC: Is the last suggested version regarding David Irving's position on the Holocaust acceptable to be added ("Höfle Telegram material") (Initiated 3027 days ago on 16 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (Initiated 3022 days ago on 21 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (Initiated 3012 days ago on 2 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC: Emphasize benchmark dates in Bach Legacy time line instead of using arbitrary century markers like 1800, 1900, 2000 etc. (Initiated 3017 days ago on 26 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Scottish & Welsh First Ministers infoboxes (Initiated 3021 days ago on 22 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vyborg#Historical affiliations infobox (Initiated 3011 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1st century#RfC: Should the lead say "First Century" or "1st century"? (Initiated 3011 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:PBB#RfC: Should template:PBB cease operating by transulating subpage onto each article (Initiated 3011 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note to closer: Please do read the discussion section on this one. There was a compromise solution proposed and generally accepted there that isn't reflected in the numerical vote. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stack Overflow#Criticism (Initiated 3017 days ago on 26 February 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Should this be included? Can Medium be considered a reliable source in this context, regardless of what WP:RS says about blogs?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maxinquaye#Recent revision to the lead (Initiated 3022 days ago on 21 February 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Maxinquaye#RfC on lead. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? (Initiated 3020 days ago on 23 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Merger proposal (Initiated 3011 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Federal Way Public Academy#RfC: Should Federal Way Public Academy be merged to Federal Way Public Schools? (Initiated 3015 days ago on 28 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:European_Graduate_School#RfC
An uninvolved admin needed to close. (Initiated 3012 days ago on 2 March 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Template talk: Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Inclusion of popular vote
We need an uninvolved admin to close the RfC on whether or not the popular vote should be included in the template. That discussion is located here. Please note that this topic has also been discussed outside of the RfC. Thanks. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I changed the link to the discussion in @Prcc27:'s request because the section title has been changed to "Inclusion of popular vote". It's high time for an uninvolved admin to assess the situation and move to close. I hope it doesn't hurt that the discussion was not formally titled an RfC; the debate has been raging for months. — JFG talk 19:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pleading for closure again (Initiated 3002 days ago on 12 March 2016) with previous discussions dating back to (Initiated 3028 days ago on 15 February 2016) for an edit war already raging earlier. This template is very visible, sitting as the infobox on one of the top 50 visited pages on Wikipedia (383,944 page views last week). A prompt closure would be most welcome during this relatively quiet period before the next voting spree next Tuesday. Thanks! — JFG talk 16:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:YouTube#RfC: Lists of countries using YouTube and of media encoding options
An uninvolved but competent editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Amway#RFC: Wording of Lede Paragraph
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Amway#RFC: Wording of Lede Paragraph (Initiated 2998 days ago on 16 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)#Move or merge proposal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954)#Move or merge proposal (Initiated 3002 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)#Merge discussion in progress
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)#Merge discussion in progress (Initiated 3002 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment (Initiated 3001 days ago on 13 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Real Robot#RFC: What should this be titled?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Real Robot#RFC: What should this be titled? (Initiated 3002 days ago on 12 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not done There's an ongoing RM discussion below this RfC, and that RM asks essentially the same question in a more focused way. The closure of the RM will encompass this RfC. If you'd like to list the RM after an appropriate amount of time, feel free to do so. ~ RobTalk 18:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Videos#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Videos#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles (Initiated 3003 days ago on 11 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States#Image of the "Classification of offenders" section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States#Image of the "Classification of offenders" section (Initiated 2998 days ago on 16 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#For articles on short passages like Psalms, which translation do we quote?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#For articles on short passages like Psalms, which translation do we quote? (Initiated 3011 days ago on 3 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Resting bitch face#RfC: is the title suitable?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Resting bitch face#RfC: is the title suitable? (Initiated 3007 days ago on 7 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline (Initiated 3005 days ago on 9 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC: Artist name as disambiguation regarding non-notable song titles (Initiated 2994 days ago on 20 March 2016)? Thanks, SSTflyer 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles
Please close this RfC, which has run its course, and which I've just had to save from bot archival. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Videos#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles
Requesting closure on this RfC which was initiated on 11 March and hasn't seen any participation lately. I feel like I should mention something about the "validity" of the RfC since discussion sprawled a bit... So without getting into the meat of the RfC.... A couple users raised concerns about the venue -- a discussion which extended to user talk pages and VPP (this thread). Others weighing in on that matter seemed satisfied with the fact that it was (and still is) listed on centralized discussion and was advertised on VPP twice and the objecting editors were invited to move the discussion to VPP (though that didn't happen). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games#RfC: Footnote for Sydney Olympics
This Rfc's tag has expired (after 30 days) & so we need somebody to close it. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction
There's currently an edit war between the RfC participants over whether to close or extend the RfC beyond 30 days. Can a non-involved, preferably Admin, editor intervene and resolve one way or the other? At the moment it's "closed" because I have not reverted the last revert, but I expect it will get re-opened, then re-closed, again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 95 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. (02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Requested moves
We currently have 91 discussions in the RM backlog, includig a couple that are 2 months old. Please help. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 March
We currently have two move review discussions waiting closer since March 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4
The Graffiki DRV hasn't been closed, a week after the normal discussion period was over. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please help, because all of the regular DRV closers who are currently active have participated in the discussion, so it's not getting closed.—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion#Old discussions
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
XfD
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 3155 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 3010 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 3005 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD
Respectfully request an uninvolved administrator please assess the proposal of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Interaction Ban between Springee and HughD. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_interaction_ban_with_User:Winkelvi
Discuss seems to have reached a lull. Only comments in last few days are comments to make sure it doesn't get archived without admin action. only (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
- Please disposition Talk:Hellelujah which has been open for over one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not sure}} Please link to the specific discussion you wish to be closed, not the talk page as a whole. ~ RobTalk 15:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - @BU Rob13:, Talk:Hellelujah#Requested move 17 February 2016 --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not sure}} Please link to the specific discussion you wish to be closed, not the talk page as a whole. ~ RobTalk 15:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)