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 22 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
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 150 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from 2015 October 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Non-free content review
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog where the oldest active entry was started on 10 June 2015 ({{Initiated|10 June 2015}}), and at the time if me posting this request, the page has 163 discussions that have yet to be closed, several started over a month ago. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please update {{Initiated}} below as the backlog is (slowly) taken care of.--Aervanath (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3296 days ago on 13 June 2015)
- About 155 discussions still to be closed.
Since this discussion board is now deprecated, and there will be no new discussions opened there, I would appreciate some help clearing the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- I just "did" about 3 of them. For the ones where I believe could really use more discussion, I've been relisting them on WP:FFD (but not in huge droves as that would overwhelm the daily subpages over there.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- We're getting close to having all these discussions closed. NFCR is now down to 100 open discussions. Also, in November, NFCR was shut down to new requests, directing new requests to WP:FFD; when all of the discussions are closed from NFCR, the noticeboard will be closed and marked as historical. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study
clearly defined question in contentious topic area, ?consensus - need closure by uninvolved admin.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that the RfC is only five days old and no one has agreed to end it early. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case should be wrapping up soon, so there's no harm in letting the RfC run it's normal time to allow the remedies can take effect in the meantime. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just a note that there are walls of text growing since Dec 4, no new editors have chimed in, and an unreasonable repetition of the same arguments, furthering WP:FUD stifles process. No one has disagreed tothe RFC. That being said, the GMO ArbCom case has been going on and on though King wants it to be wrapped up soon as possible, as he has stated repeatedly on the arbcom page, there's no harm in closing the RfC to stop the hemorraging of glyphosate so that small remedies can take effect in the meantime. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) This RFC is only the first in 3 whole sale deletions by the same editor group, anticipating more RFC's to come.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for closure on Phaedrus (dialogue) which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed
Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) and do a close on this short RfC during the holidays. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:German evacuation from East-Central Europe near the end of World War II#RFC (Initiated 3136 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)#RfC: Two contradictory sections in current Phaedrus (dialogue) article are self-contradictory and should be repaired (Initiated 3136 days ago on 20 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg (Initiated 3130 days ago on 26 November 2015)? Please consider the related discussion Talk:Umpqua Community College shooting#Photo of Harper-Mercer in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#The current "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed" requirement: retain or abandon? (Initiated 3164 days ago on 23 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Request for closure: Wikipedia talk:List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters
Would an experienced editor assess the discussion on the RfC at Talk:List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters#RfC:_Appropriate_detail_of_plot_summary_information and close as appropriate.
This follows a formal RfC initiated 29 Nov 2015, {{rfc|soc|rfcid=4B31646}}.
Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article
- Request for closure on Johann Sebastian Bach which has had thirty-days and in ready to be closed
- Could someone visit this Talk page at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and do a close on this RfC. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article (Initiated 3119 days ago on 7 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC) Done - No consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Softlavender: A DRN volunteer has taken it upon himself to close the RfC without knowledge that there is 4-5 Support for the edit with citations added, along with two Oppose. This is usually against DRN policy for volunteers there to close RfCs which are still open. I have written a follow-up RfC and keeping both RfCs open would make it easier for new editors to follow the argument. DRN policy is generally against the volunteers there to close RfCs especially when they resemble a "no comment/no consensus" demi-close. Could you glance at it. You had reposted this Request for closure here in the waiting queue after one of the Opposing editors deleted it here prematurely. Keeping both RfCs open would make it easier for new editors joining the discussion at the Bach Talk page. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm one of the founders of DRN, one of the longest-serving volunteers there, and the current DRN Coordinator. There is no DRN policy against volunteers closing RfCs (regardless of the type of close). Since a pending RfC will result in a DRN case being closed (due to our rule against handling cases pending in more than one dispute resolution process), I see no reason that a DRN volunteer cannot close a RfC which is clearly ready to be closed so as to allow it to proceed at DRN (provided that consensus has not clearly been reached in the RFC, in which case there is no dispute to take to DRN). Such an action may result in the neutrality of the DRN volunteer coming into question and the best practice would be for that volunteer to not take the DRN case or to withdraw from it if he or she has already touched it, which is exactly what happened in this case. It must be bourne in mind that DRN volunteers, like all dispute resolution volunteers, are ordinary Wikipedia editors who also happen to work in DR. Except as noted above, they have the right to do anything any other Wikipedia editor has the right to do. That includes closing RfCs. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Levan Songulashvili
(Initiated 3088 days ago on 7 January 2016) It would be great if we could close this discussion[1], even though it's relatively recent, so that it directs people to the AFD instead of continuing the BLP discussion. Not sure if that's appropriate or not.--Jahaza (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not done discussion is already archived, and there is no point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#RfC:_Rump_Militia
This has only been open one week, however, we have an interest in resolving quickly as it's a current events situation. All of the principal parties have indicated an agreement that they would like to see rapid resolution of the RfC faster than 30 days, including me, the proposer. (User:Leitmotiv) LavaBaron (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Why not leave the RfC open, but change the article now as a temporary measure to be re-evaluated after the 30-day period ends? If it helps, my evaluation at this point is that "armed group" is the most likely to eventually reach consensus. Sunrise (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Sunrise:. I'm pinging @Leitmotiv: with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Holding it open is fine with me, though if the closer opts for any version of the nondescriptive word "group" the closer will hopefully provide reasoning that goes beyond naked vote-counting per my rebuttal comment in the thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Sunrise:. I'm pinging @Leitmotiv: with that advice and will defer a decision to him. LavaBaron (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/CobraNet/1
Making a community GAR was a bad choice. Although, I (suppose) consensus is clear, there's no one to close it. In fact, a huge backlog at GAR persists, help out if you can. You don't need formal closure for GARs but posting here was the last move. Also, there's a RfC on the talk page of the article, if you're willing you can participate. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 15:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done delisted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 3114 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson#RfC: The statement that (Initiated 3118 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 3115 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monarchy of Ceylon#RfC: Merge and disambiguate (Initiated 3127 days ago on 29 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Muhammad#What should be included for information regarding Aishas' marriage to Muhammad on the Muhammad article? (Initiated 3122 days ago on 4 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Green children of Woolpit#RFC: Uncited, original-research conflation, in the article introduction and headings, of three types of explanations into two (Initiated 3120 days ago on 6 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city (Initiated 3118 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Glyphosate#RFC: Appropriate use of NON-WP:MEDRS primary study. (Initiated 3121 days ago on 5 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CobraNet#RfC on manufacturer list (Initiated 3115 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Watchdog.org#Request for comment: summarization of multiple third party assessments of degree of ideological orientation (Initiated 3118 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippine presidential election, 2016#Request for comment (Initiated 3117 days ago on 9 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:PolitiFact.com#RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant? (Initiated 3116 days ago on 10 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maronites#Attention needed
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Maronites#Attention needed (Initiated 3123 days ago on 3 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#RFC: when are community radio stations notable? (Initiated 3118 days ago on 8 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 65#RfC: Anime films and production companies (Initiated 3109 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect (Initiated 3126 days ago on 30 November 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Two individual subsections have been closed, but there are several more. Sunrise (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Sunrise: Two more of the six-part complex RfC are now closed. Is one of the editors there to compile a master RfC to close out the six sub-RfCs once the six sub-RfCs are closed? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Fountains-of-Paris: Are there any issues that will remain outstanding afterwards, like unaddressed disputes or conflicts between the sub-closures? One of the open sections is for general comments on the whole RfC, which implies there might be some benefit to an overall close, but on the other hand, there's probably no need if all the outcomes are clear and nobody objects. You and Beeblebrox are probably in a better position to decide that than I am. Sunrise (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: If the remaining two subsections of the complex RfC are closed out, will you or someone be writing the master RfC to coordinate the final outcome as needed? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Request_for_comment: Talk:ExxonMobil#Request_for_comment:_ExxonMobil_among_most_vocal_climate_change_deniers
Discussion has gone stale. Requesting assessment of consensus and closer of discussion. Thanks Springee (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is a 22 December RfC which is still under RfC template announcement with divided opinion. Should it wait until 22 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3104 days ago on 22 December 2015) AlbinoFerret 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NPOV and information pages
Perennial attempt to apply WP:CORE to projectpages. It's off-topic and out-of-scope at that noticeboard. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3087 days ago on 8 January 2016) AlbinoFerret 19:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Help talk:IPA for English#RfC: Should we continue recommending the sign ⟨ɵ⟩?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:IPA for English#RfC: Should we continue recommending the sign ⟨ɵ⟩? (Initiated 3110 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference#Eliminate "image_size" parameter?
An accurate closing rationale is needed. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- This appears to be 28 Dec Rfc with still ten days to go. Possibly check on 28 Jan. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio
- This RfC is still under template announcement and was started 10 January. Possibly wait until 10 February. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The question is whether it is fair and reasonable to have this template at the top of Marco Rubio when no other Republican candidate has a similar template. The Iowa caucus is in Feb. 1. The spouses of all other major candidates contesting Iowa and New Hampshire have pages. And the Jeanette Rubio page is well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The "top" of the article currently has the lead section without any template, and normally a request to protect a page during polls or elections is done well in advance. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
and
- Done closed, as discussion here overtaken by AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio
I am requesting that Administrators take a minute to consider the appropriateness of this ongoing discussion. I am aware that this is an unusual request, but the existence of these 2 discussions less than 2 weeks before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary creates an unusual situation, one that almost seems to verge on WP:POINTY applied to the actual election of an American President. Please note that there are in-depth profiles of Mrs. Rubio in Major media outlets, and that articles exist on the spouses of all other major candidates for President. And consider whether this discussion, with attendant templates, is appropriate on the eve of Iowa and New Hampshire.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- The KEEP consensus is currently somewhat stronger, with only two editors opposed to keeping it at this time 19 January. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Already done by Coffee. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT?
There have been about a dozen comments in the last 30 days, but a consensus is not clear. It has not been contentious, but since it affects a WP guideline, an uninvolved editor is requested to assess consensus and close it. (Initiated 3106 days ago on 20 December 2015) Thanks, —Ojorojo (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Boy (2015 film)
There was a neutrality dispute at The Boy (2015 film) regarding the film's reception. I joined the discussion after a request at the Film project and have re-drafted the section (the draft is available in full on the talk page). I did install it after a reasonable waiting period but one of the original editors involved in the dispute is now opposing the redraft (I have reverted to the original version for the time-being). I think the consensus is fairly clear but since I undertook the draft it will have no validity if I close the discussion. We need somebody impartial and not involved in the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Political_correctness#Generally_or_primarily_or_something_else
It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Undone I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)