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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Billiardball1.png/40px-Billiardball1.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Billiardball2.png/40px-Billiardball2.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Billiardball3.png/40px-Billiardball3.png)
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)
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: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)
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)
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)
- (Initiated 3092 days ago on 3 January 2016) AlbinoFerret
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: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)
Done Closed. Consensus already implemented on Dec. 30, 2015, by User:DrKay. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 28 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: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)
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)
- @Sunrise: The last two parts of the 6-part RfC were closed this morning. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:41, 22 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)
Done AlbinoFerret 01:35, 28 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: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)
Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy
Please disposition Talk:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge#Proposed merge with Ammon Bundy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - Also, may we archive Talk:Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge#RfC:_Rump_Militia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RfC: Sub-categories of Category:People by former country
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RfC: Sub-categories of Category:People by former country (Initiated 3111 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done AlbinoFerret 01:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Alan Berg#RfC: Should Berg’s Jewish religion be mentioned in the lede as a motive for his murder?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Berg#RfC: Should Berg’s Jewish religion be mentioned in the lede as a motive for his murder? (Initiated 3104 days ago on 22 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done AlbinoFerret 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"? (Initiated 3108 days ago on 18 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#RfC (Initiated 3104 days ago on 22 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 3112 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Séralini affair#Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Séralini affair#Proposal: Include the reason why S paper was retracted (Initiated 3110 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Séralini affair#Citation to republication in Lede
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Séralini affair#Citation to republication in Lede (Initiated 3110 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini#RFC regarding Awards/Honor section
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gilles-Éric Séralini#RFC regarding Awards/Honor section (Initiated 3111 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Ayurveda#Proposals
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ayurveda#Proposals (Initiated 3111 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Borderline personality disorder#New Image: painting by Edvard Munch
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Borderline personality disorder#New Image: painting by Edvard Munch (Initiated 3110 days ago on 16 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done Closed by User:Fountains-of-Paris. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#RFC: Word "extraordinary" in lede sentence (Initiated 3108 days ago on 18 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done AlbinoFerret 02:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:AURORA#RfC: Page title capitalised or not
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AURORA#RfC: Page title capitalised or not (Initiated 3109 days ago on 17 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done AlbinoFerret 02:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Current title (again)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cold War II#RfC: Current title (again) (Initiated 3103 days ago on 23 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done AlbinoFerret 02:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)#RfC: Infobox
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)#RfC: Infobox (Initiated 3114 days ago on 12 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)#RFC: External link to Marsy's Law For All website
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marsy's Law (Illinois)#RFC: External link to Marsy's Law For All website (Initiated 3112 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Monarch/ appointed by (Initiated 3111 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:LGBT in Islam#Proposed text amendment
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:LGBT in Islam#Proposed text amendment (Initiated 0 days ago on 21 June 2024)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:White privilege#RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White privilege#RFC: Neutrality of the first paragraph (Initiated 3111 days ago on 15 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT? (Initiated 3106 days ago on 20 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 3113 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request for Bazaan
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer request for Bazaan (Initiated 3086 days ago on 9 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)