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 14 April 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/Archive342#Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal

(Initiated 40 days ago on 3 April 2022) - archived topic ban appeal, requesting per a request at WP:AN BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:The Wall Street Journal#Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary.

(Initiated 176 days ago on 19 November 2021) A closure of the RfC was withdrawn following a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN. An experienced closer is requested. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 86 days ago on 17 February 2022) Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)#RfC: Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger

(Initiated 65 days ago on 9 March 2022) Discussion has been still for a while. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#RFC_on_wording_of_bullet_point_in_Discuss_section

(Initiated 53 days ago on 22 March 2022) Expired RFC that I started that has grown into a large, complex discussion where many proposals were considered. An experienced editor who knows how to evaluate consensus carefully would be helpful to close this discussion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Using samples to identify songs in song articles

(Initiated 41 days ago on 3 April 2022) Needs one or two uninvolved editors to close this. --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait to close a few days. The RFC is still running. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C54D:43E:AA67:CA78 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is done now, so the closure process can start. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:7546:E856:AD20:126A (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Azov_Battalion#RFC_designation_of_Azov_"Battalion"_as_neo-Nazi_in_lede

(Initiated 34 days ago on 10 April 2022) High visibility/newsworthiness article. Strongly-held disputed views. Messy RfC. Policy questions. Overflow and further disputation in additional sections now archived. Also previous RfCs and former discussions. Panel close by experienced admins could be valuable. Jheald (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'm down to join a panel if other editors want to start one. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 23:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Likewise not an admin, but happy to join a panel, or to close individually. In either case, would provide substantial rationale, as done for previous closes of contested RfCs. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Might be best to leave this to admins, it is highly contentious and thus I think it might be best if is done by some kind of "authority" so as to give it some weight. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, a number of accounts have shown up since this request for close that have chosen to make the change ort ask for it, whilst not actually commenting in the RFC. Thus I am unsure the issue (or interest) has settled. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree, leave this to admin. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm an admin, and I won't touch it. This was a horrible RfC right from the start - the statement was long, incoherent and often changed, so it wasn't possible to work out what was being asked, let alone leave a suitable constructive comment. Even Legobot had difficulty in identifying the start date, and so made the absolute minimum entry in the RfC listings. Since it couldn't determine the start date, it also doesn't know when thirty days later might be, and won't be able to remove the {{rfc}} tag, so it will need to be manually removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

So folks, any volunteers for a potential kamikaze task? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States#RFC on Continental Association

(Initiated 31 days ago on 13 April 2022) This RFC has been contentious because the question that it addresses has been contentious. So a close by an administrator may be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've asked repeatedly in the RfC for a three-editor panel close of this very long discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Asking in the RFC for a three-editor close doesn't have any effect. Asking here is the place to ask, and a panel close will be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of political parties in Italy#RFC on Structure of Lists of Italian Political Parties

(Initiated 15 days ago on 29 April 2022) We have decided to close this RFC to partially rewrite it and start a new one. A formal closure is necessary in order not to create confusion with the new RFC that will be started. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:SDC's closure request. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	39	74	34	147
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	3	0	3
FfD	0	0	1	5	6
RfD	0	0	31	42	73
AfD	0	0	0	13	13

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 3#Transgender and transsexual categories

(Initiated 41 days ago on 3 April 2022) Not sure if this is the right place to put this. Happy for it to be removed if it is not. Discussion was opened 1 month ago, last comment was on 23 April. Requesting experienced closure as this CfD was subject to offwiki canvassing. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Farukh#Requested move 27 March 2022

(Initiated 48 days ago on 27 March 2022) discussion is stale. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Done by Paine Ellsworth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Asgill Affair#A long-overdue revised version of the Asgill Affair

(Initiated 45 days ago on 30 March 2022) Discussion is stale. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)