The Closure requests 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 appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.
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 28 August 2022); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to 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. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.
A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion 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#Non-admin closure for details.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}}
to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}}
or {{Done}}
and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}}
to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}
. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}}
template with |done=yes
. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}
, {{Close}}
, {{Done}}
{{Not done}}
, and {{Resolved}}
.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 90 days ago on 29 June 2022) Discussion has petered out many weeks ago, without a clear consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Colour Discussions
(Initiated 82 days ago on 7 July 2022) - I was asked on my talk page to close "the Redux of the Redux discussion section and the active RfC" [1] but having taken a look I don't understand what is being proposed enough or enough of the comments to properly assess consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Sky News Australia
(Initiated 51 days ago on 6 August 2022) The discussion for this RfC has ended and has been archived. IMHO, a closure is desired. Many thanks! VickKiang 21:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Talk:List of best-selling music artists#RfC on listing method of best-selling music artist
(Initiated 39 days ago on 19 August 2022) There has been several AN/I filings surrounding this issue, lengthy discussions aside from simple !votes and policy implications of some arguments presented. I believe the closure needs to be undertaken by an admin or an experienced user with good knowledge of policy. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- In this case the RfC generated many messages and several votes during the second half of August, but thereafter its activity declined. I did not close the RfC when it was still active; indeed, although I was daily checking for new messages, I let the 30 days period pass so that users would have as much time as possible to vote until Legobot automatically ended the RfC. During that time, users were able to vote, and there was clear majority support for eliminating the old methodology.
- I also checked if any user had extended the RfC before Legobot ended it. After the automatic end, I waited several hours before closing it, and then I waited several more hours (in total about a day and a half) before proceeding with the implementation of the new methodology. For the moment, unless I am asked here to do so, I prefer not to revert the RfC closing as I believe that the time periods have been respected, and I think that what is motivating this request is the implementation of the new methodology on the List and not the ending or the closing of the RfC itself. Salvabl (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Salvabl you are a heavily involved editor on this topic and in this discussion (making 12 lengthy comments in the RfC). I believe that, given the contentiousness of the topic, it needs an uninvolved editor to close it to ensure that the outcome of the RfC has some legitimacy. Further, your close seems to heavily rely on !votes rather than the extended discussion of which you were a primary participant. I know this isn't the right avenue for to appeal a close so I'm again kindly asking for you to revert your close rather than taking this to WP:AN. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, if the reason for this request is the closing of the RfC, then I will revert it. Please, pardon my ignorance about the RfC process. I think it's good to have more time for more users to express their points of view. I closed the RfC because Legobot had already ended it and no user showed interest in extending it or restarting it; and simply because it seemed to have already accomplished its mission, since activity had declined and consensus had been reached to eliminate the old methodology. Salvabl (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. This is not about the time it's been open but the appropriateness for a neutral party to close the discussion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, if the reason for this request is the closing of the RfC, then I will revert it. Please, pardon my ignorance about the RfC process. I think it's good to have more time for more users to express their points of view. I closed the RfC because Legobot had already ended it and no user showed interest in extending it or restarting it; and simply because it seemed to have already accomplished its mission, since activity had declined and consensus had been reached to eliminate the old methodology. Salvabl (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Salvabl you are a heavily involved editor on this topic and in this discussion (making 12 lengthy comments in the RfC). I believe that, given the contentiousness of the topic, it needs an uninvolved editor to close it to ensure that the outcome of the RfC has some legitimacy. Further, your close seems to heavily rely on !votes rather than the extended discussion of which you were a primary participant. I know this isn't the right avenue for to appeal a close so I'm again kindly asking for you to revert your close rather than taking this to WP:AN. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Jerusalem#Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem?
(Initiated 39 days ago on 19 August 2022) nableezy - 18:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at that, and I'm reluctant to close it. The RfC itself, without looking at the background and circumstances, is a "no consensus", and by our rules that ought to mean to restore the status quo ante. But the status quo ante is to include the disputed images, one of which was created by NOTHERE and now-indefinitely-blocked User:Cameltrader, and both of which originate from Israel. Palestine doesn't use them. I do feel that including the disputed claim amounts to a backdoor endorsement of the Israeli claim to Jerusalem, and I think that's incompatible with the outcome of the 2013 RfC and undermines NPOV. So I think that in the circumstances, it needs closing with a supervote to remove the images, but I'm not comfortable with doing that by myself.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm of a similar mind. It's going to come down to onus versus status quo. There is the possibility of looking at the earlier lead consensus and deciding if that has any weight in the current discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Talk:State_of_Palestine#RFC_about_de_jure
(Initiated 36 days ago on 22 August 2022) nableezy - 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RFC: Volume stats sections combining regular season and playoffs
(Initiated 12 days ago on 14 September 2022) — One user who, from the start, disagreed with the majority requested that a RfC be started. There was consensus prior to the RfC that, generally, combined regular season and playoff stats should not be included in lists or articles, aside from 1 notable exception. The RfC did not generate any opposition to the consensus that had already been found. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20 | 22 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#"Title (Disambiguation)" redirects to disambiguation pages
(Initiated 34 days ago on 24 August 2022) May need an experienced closer to close this discussion. There haven't been any new comments in over a week. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States#Splitting proposal
(Initiated 407 days ago on 16 August 2021) Split request was started over a year ago without any new discussion in months. ZLEA T\C 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)/Archive_4#Lead_sentence_and_infobox
(Initiated 253 days ago on 17 January 2022) Conversation finished in March and has since been archived - some involved users have differing views on whether a consensus has been reached (and what that consensus is), which has since resulted in further disagreements on affected article pages. Would be good to have an outside take, if possible given the archived nature of the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe that a non-procedural close is suitable here; for a disputed proposal that suggests modifying WP:PAG, a formal discussion is needed.BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:In the News#Remove "launch failures" from ITN/R?
(Initiated 12 days ago on 15 September 2022) Seems to have a pretty clear consensus after over a week and a half. 173.68.184.70 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)