Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

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 6 March 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

See also: Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341#NSPORTS closure review

(Initiated 26 days ago on 10 March 2022) The close of the 2022 NSPORT RfC was challenged at AN. Given the magnitude of the issue, closure may be needed now that the AN discussion has been archived. The implementation of the RfC is dependent on the AN discussion. An experienced closer previously uninvolved with the NSPORTS discussions would be ideal. Pilaz (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:AN#Darkfrog24 unblock request

(Initiated 19 days ago on 17 March 2022) The unblock discussion has been open for 12 days with no further major discussion taking place. I believe the request is ready to close. Operator873 ^connect 20:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Elinruby

(Initiated 11 days ago on 25 March 2022) AN/I posting on which not a single Administrator has commented. Oldest posting on AN/I by multiple days, discussion has largely stopped and it seems everyone has said their piece. A verdict is needed one way or another. BSMRD (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC on the use of dash-separated titles for sports events

(Initiated 76 days ago on 19 January 2022) Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_369#Is_the_specific_study_this_discussion_originated_with_(BMJ)_reliable?

(Initiated 75 days ago on 20 January 2022) Please see also this talk page discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It would seem like this discussion has disappeared into the RSN archives. Should it be resurrected to give us closure? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed link to point to the specific archive, will ping all participants once this is closed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Rose (podcaster)#RfC on text around conspiracy theories

(Initiated 72 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)

It's borderline for me, and I'm not exactly sure that either of the texts have full support, so I'd prefer an experienced admin close it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

A more recent discussion participant has proposed to draft alternative language, so I would wait and see if that comes about. A few more days can't hurt, particularly where maintaining the status quo is the default alternative. BD2412 T 05:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Amnesty International

(Initiated 54 days ago on 10 February 2022) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371 § Amnesty International? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese_government_response_to_COVID-19#RfC:_first_paragraph

(Initiated 49 days ago on 15 February 2022) Requesting close to open RFC on another subject. CutePeach (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC: Remove "attribution" clauses from RD1

(Initiated 47 days ago on 17 February 2022) Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fox News

(Initiated 46 days ago on 18 February 2022) On top of the inherently contentious nature of the proposal, there was significant controversy over whether this RfC (which failed WP:RFCNEUTRAL) is adequate to its intended aim. Have fun with this one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion's now archived. With the caveat that I participated in the discussion, I will say that I don't think it's necessary or even worthwhile to close it. It became a pre-RfC discussion which might lead to a well-formed RfC in future, but wasn't really one as written.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  I suppose I don't feel particularly strongly about this getting a formal closure either; by my reckoning, it wasn't going to change the existing consensus anyway. That said, I don't think there would be much community support to open an actual RfC soon after this discussion because so many people treated it like one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I reverted A. C. Santacruz's edit which marked this request as done. I had posted a duplicate request for closure down in "Other types of closing requests", as this wasn't really an RfC. Regardless of where it's placed, I do think formal closure would help for this discussion, which was posted on WP:CENT and well attended. If an uninvolved volunteer thinks this should be "not done", I'll accept it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy_Savile#RfC_on_lead_sentence

(Initiated 39 days ago on 25 February 2022) An experienced uninvolved close would be appreciated.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Skeptical Inquirer

(Initiated 39 days ago on 25 February 2022)

In my opinion, this RfC should be closed by an uninvolved editor with experience in contentious closes and enough free time to respond to a close challenge.

The RfC closes at 20:34, 27 March 2022 but I wanted to give any potential closers time to decide whether to take this on before an inexperienced editor sees the 30 days have passed, jumps in, and posts a close that is certain to be disputed. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Let us not rehash these arguments. The above statement should suffice. Isabelle 🔔 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for a experienced closer for several reasons: Emotions are high on this one, and it is likely that whichever way it closes there will be accusations that it was closed with a WP:SUPERVOTE. I expect any close to be challenged; I know an upcoming shitstorm when I see one on the horizon. WP:BIASED says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" but multiple !votes amount to "SI is biased so it must be unreliable". These need to be evaluated to see if they conform to Wikipedia policies on reliable but biased sources. Complicating the situation is the fact that some editors claim "SI is biased so it must be unreliable" but also made valid arguments concerning SI's reliability. Arbcom published a Finding of Fact (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Skeptical Inquirer as a reliable source) on what the current consensus was at the time based upon RSNB discussions from before this RfC. If the result of this RfC does not match that FoF IMO the closing should explicitly discuss which of the two is authoritative and whether an additional decision at WP:ARCA to bring the two into alignment is needed. The answer to this question may seem obvious, but it is near certain that there will be a heated debate about this by whoever didn't get their way. At WP:ARBSCE, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#GSoW training: contents found (Passed 8 to 0 with 2 abstentions) that "[GSoW] Trainees are given outlines of Wikipedia's core content policies and encouraged to explore project-space on their own" and Arbcom did not place any special restrictions on GSoW members, yet at least one participant in the RfC has repeatedly claimed that GSoW members are automatically to be considered to have been canvassed and thus are not allowed to comment on the RfC (with no evidence needed that the editor being accused actually is a GSoW member or that there has been any canvassing at GSoW). --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Guy Macon Alternate Account please append your closure request to be neutral. You are advocating for one of the options and discussing arguments raised within the closure request. Additionally, it has been explained to you multiple times that the result of the RfC is authoritative both by involved editors, uninvolved admins and arb members, so there is no need to point that out to the closer. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Closed with a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 27 February 2022)

Requesting formal closure since it requires changing a WP:GUIDELINE. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on Russian bounties wording

(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 March 2022)

No comments in nearly a month. A close is needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article

(Initiated 29 days ago on 7 March 2022)

No comments for a week, closure would be good. Fwiw, per [1], WMF may be watching this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	144	0	144
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	3	0	3
RfD	0	0	28	0	28
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stump (3rd nomination)

(Initiated 22 days ago on 13 March 2022) – I think this has been open long enough, and consensus was clear before the third relist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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?

(Initiated 98 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)

Hi Pilaz. I read the linked discussion through once. My first thought is that the discussion doesn't particularly need formal closure, and that it reads like the editors involved are hashing out ideas that might then be used in an actionable proposal. Do you still seek formal closure of the discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chemical data pages cleanup#Chemical data pages cleanup

(Initiated 95 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)

@DePiep: I gave a glance at this and honestly don't have a clue what I'm looking at. Is there something people are still disagreeing about? If everyone tacitly agrees what the consensus is now, no formal closure is necessary. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727:: You saw it right ;-) In short: discussion is stale; was concluded elsewhere in a related AfD; the AfD advised thorough discussion elsewhere (like VP or RFC).

To close this (complicated, multi-subtopical) discussion thread I propose {{hat}}-ting by an outsider; follow up possibly elsewhere or as restart (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chemical data pages cleanup § Request hatting closure).

The closer (like you) does not have to conclude, just freeze the big thread. Reason I ask here is that I am involved and so cannot add {{hat}} myself. One of my opponents in there supports this route. DePiep (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ethel_Hedgeman_Lyle#Requested_move_4_February_2022

(Initiated 60 days ago on 4 February 2022) Been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Doing... Ganesha811 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811:, would you be willing to postpone your close and allow time for me to submit a comment? No big deal if the answer is no. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:, sure, I'll revisit it in a few hours. Your comment might make the close easier or it might make it harder, but either way I'll get back to this after you have contributed! :) Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: comment submitted. You have my gratitude. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Closed - not moved. @Natg 19:, closed at last! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2022 February#Pākehā settlers

(Initiated 52 days ago on 12 February 2022) – ask that a closer please look at this and end the eager anticipation. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 11:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Justin (name)

(Initiated 51 days ago on 13 February 2022) Please review the discussion at Talk:Justin (name). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I could hat the discussion, but honestly I don't think that giving a formal closure to this discussion makes sense at this point considering the relative dearth of substantive discussion on the proposal. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - @Mhawk10:, what do you mean by "hat the discussion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  By "hat" I meant "formally mark the discussion as closed, write a brief closing summary, and collapse the discussion". My wording was imprecise, for which I apologize. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  It comes from the use of the template pair {{hat}}/{{hab}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reply - I might have you close this, after which time I might start a request for comment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Canada convoy protest#Title change and alternative, more fitting titles

(Initiated 48 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)

Talk:Canada convoy protest#Requested move 6 March 2022

(Initiated 29 days ago on 6 March 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_March#The_In_Between_(2022_film)

(Initiated 28 days ago on 7 March 2022) The discussion is circling the drain with same users repeating the same points to each other. Calidum 17:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)