Wikipedia:Closure requests
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 7 February 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[edit]
Administrative discussions[edit]
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]
Requests for comment[edit]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Request for comments - honorifics for antipopes[edit]
(Initiated 75 days ago on 23 December 2021) Active discussion has ended among current participants. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey#RfC: Turkish village stub mass redirect[edit]
(Initiated 65 days ago on 2 January 2022) RFC with three different options that are not mutually exclusive. Needs closing. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk:House_system_at_the_California_Institute_of_Technology#RfC_on_capitalization_of_buildings[edit]
(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 January 2022) Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on the use of dash-separated titles for sports events[edit]
(Initiated 49 days ago on 19 January 2022) Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Brian_Rose_(podcaster)#RfC_on_text_around_conspiracy_theories[edit]
(Initiated 44 days ago on 23 January 2022) No new discussion for a week. No resolution or clarity has emerged from the discussion. Would be useful to have an outside closer. Bondegezou (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Doing... — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)- Actually, somebody just commented today. I'd prefer to leave a day or two to see if there are any responses to the most recent comment before closing the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reminder ping to Mhawk10. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, somebody just commented today. I'd prefer to leave a day or two to see if there are any responses to the most recent comment before closing the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Doing... — Talk:Uyghur genocide#RfC: First Sentence[edit]
(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 January 2022): Messy discussion involving analysis of different types of RS to determine whether or not using the current article title in the first sentence conforms to NPOV. Was previously closed in favor of option A, which was overturned at AN. Should be closed by an admin this time. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Behind the Voice Actors[edit]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 4 February 2022) Would like a formal closure for this one so that the result can be listed at WP:RSP, as this is an unusual source that is likely to come up again. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]
Deletion discussions[edit]
| V | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 1 | 141 | 3 | 145 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 10 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 12 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek Aggoun[edit]
(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 February 2022) Last relisted 3 weeks ago. Needs someone to close it, preferably with a non-trivial and well-reasoned closing summary, since the wider issue at hand (interpretation of notability guidelines) has been a matter of some controversy lately. Avilich (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]
Other types of closing requests[edit]
Template talk:Talk header#Consider updating the "only where it's needed" instruction[edit]
(Initiated 128 days ago on 31 October 2021) CENT-listed discussion that went quiet and was actioned by a participant, but where other edits have now questioned that result. Would benefit from a formal close from an uninvolved editor. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress[edit]
(Initiated 85 days ago on 13 December 2021) Please review discussion. Matter was taken to WP:RSN to resolve a dispute. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections#Does this guideline (and its section MOS:POPCULT) apply to stand-alone lists or "in popular culture" articles?[edit]
(Initiated 70 days ago on 28 December 2021) We've had a month-long discussion on this, but it fizzled out in late January. Last reply was on 2 February 2022. Since the question at hand reappears at AfD every so often, we could probably benefit from a close. Pilaz (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals/Chemical_data_pages_cleanup#Chemical_data_pages_cleanup[edit]
(Initiated 67 days ago on 31 December 2021). Request is described at #Request_hatting_closure. (Talk is stale, after a noconsensus-closure of an AfD). I am involved; I think this thread status is not controversional. -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Prince_Aimone,_Duke_of_Apulia#Requested_move_11_January_2022[edit]
(Initiated 57 days ago on 11 January 2022) Needs someone to close this RM; been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 01:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Houghton_Hall,_East_Riding_of_Yorkshire#Requested_move_21_January_2022[edit]
(Initiated 49 days ago on 18 January 2022) Needs someone to close this RM; been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 01:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Justin (name)[edit]
(Initiated 23 days ago on 13 February 2022) Please review the discussion at Talk:Justin (name). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Canada_convoy_protest#Title_change_and_alternative,_more_fitting_titles[edit]
(Initiated 21 days ago on 16 February 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, this discussion seems to have been more of a straw poll/brainstorming exercise, so I'm not sure formal closure would be very useful. (If I did close it, I would probably say something like "there is interest in several possible titles, including 2022 Canadian convoy protests, Canada convoy protests, and Freedom convoy protests, but there's no consensus for any particular proposal due largely to low participation. Further discussion is welcome since most participants aren't happy with the current title either.") My suggestion would be to choose one (and only one) of the proposed titles that gained the most support (maybe 2022 Canadian convoy protests) and propose it in a new RM, giving participants an either/or choice between the proposed title and the status quo. It might also be worthwhile just to wait a week or two: it may well be that finding consensus will become far easier once these events are safely out of the headlines. I hope this is helpful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I just started a move discussion at Talk:Canada_convoy_protest#Requested_move_6_March_2022. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)