Wikipedia:Closure requests
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
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, 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 25 October 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 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 the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.
If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.
Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.
If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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.
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.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.
Requests for closure
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
RfCs
(Initiated 1697 days ago on 1 April 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've done one; there are several more discussions to close on that page, though.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've done one, there are two more to go. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1685 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RFC: West Bank village articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1684 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an editor assess consensus and close this RfC when appropriate? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1675 days ago on 24 April 2020) Formal close needed SpinningSpark 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1674 days ago on 24 April 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#RFC:_Should_the_date_or_the_event_start_the_article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1673 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1664 days ago on 5 May 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1662 days ago on 7 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1657 days ago on 11 May 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the expired RfC on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China? It is being contested by an editor. — MarkH21talk 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1649 days ago on 20 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post? This RfC is not yet 30 days old, because it was subject to an accelerated schedule per WP:RSNRFC. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1638 days ago on 31 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experience editor please assess the RM consensus at Talk:Government of Victoria? Thank you! ItsPugle (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 7 June 2020) - So I am re-adding this request for a speedy close. I closed this after there were 8 votes against and only one for (the opener), and editors had suggested the editor put down the stick, noted it was invalid and bias, and requested it be withdrawn. The opener has refused to get the point and now reverted that close. Again, they demand the right to refuse to follow the previous consensus (and blatantly clear consensus already apparent in this one) while they run the clock on this RfC. This disruptive behaviour has to stop.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted the close because it was by you, someone who has a clear bias and who participated in the Rfc. That’s the real disruptive behavior going on. Not only did you not write up a consensus but you are breaking the rules by closing the Rfc yourself instead of letting someone who’s unbiased and didn’t participate do it, as is customary. I just want the Rfc to play out fairly. Smith0124 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can read my closing comments here and see you are lying. You need to respect the previous consensus, what people have told you in this RfC, and stop trying to game the system to leave your edits in place while a RfC runs. This is a clear abuse of process. You need to desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not lying when I say that you tried to close the Rfc which is against the rules. That’s not a lie it’s totally the truth. Smith0124 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I did close it (as I write above). You are lying when you say there was no closing comments and it was just "hidden". It was there for anyone to read, and still would be if you hadn't removed it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I said that you didn’t write up a proper consensus which is true. You just took the opportunity to attack me personally again. It doesn’t matter that’s just a detail that you are nitpicking. There’s no need to drag on this discussion on. Smith0124 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is right there in the history for anyone to read bro:
The previous RfC found consensus to include all candidates who receive either a delegate or 5% of the vote in the infobox of sub articles. Votes in this RfC are 8 for including withdrawn candidates, and 1 (the opener) opposed. There is a clear consensus to include withdrawn candidates in the infoboxes of the sub-pages if they receive either a delegate or 5% of the vote (the same standard that applies to those who have not withdrawn or suspended their campaigns).
- Did you read it?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I did. We are diverging from the point here. Point is you weren’t allowed to close it and that’s why I reverted it. Let’s just wait for formal closure instead of pointlessly argue. Smith0124 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is right there in the history for anyone to read bro:
- I said that you didn’t write up a proper consensus which is true. You just took the opportunity to attack me personally again. It doesn’t matter that’s just a detail that you are nitpicking. There’s no need to drag on this discussion on. Smith0124 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I did close it (as I write above). You are lying when you say there was no closing comments and it was just "hidden". It was there for anyone to read, and still would be if you hadn't removed it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- I’m not lying when I say that you tried to close the Rfc which is against the rules. That’s not a lie it’s totally the truth. Smith0124 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Anyone can read my closing comments here and see you are lying. You need to respect the previous consensus, what people have told you in this RfC, and stop trying to game the system to leave your edits in place while a RfC runs. This is a clear abuse of process. You need to desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 24 | 24 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 shootings of Oakland police officers? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 2113 days ago on 11 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the merge proposal arguments at Talk:Upper Caste#Proposed merge with Forward caste relating to a proposal to merge Upper Caste into Forward caste. Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1957 days ago on 16 July 2019) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split? Also, on a side note, there is a complete lack of split/move/history attribution for Lynn Anderson discography, Lynn Anderson singles discography and Lynn Anderson albums discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: The Lynn Anderson issues are nothing to do with any of the threads at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes or its subject page. It's also nothing to do with this page, which is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Please do not put multiple unrelated requests under the same heading; this is not the first time that you have done this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1703 days ago on 27 March 2020) It was difficult getting feedback on whether to merge three pages together due to repeating the same information. Would an experienced editor assist in closing the discussion? Thank you. lullabying (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1676 days ago on 22 April 2020) – this is overdue for closure, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 07:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1654 days ago on 14 May 2020) Please review the discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1645 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_297#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1642 days ago on 26 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#BRD_-_Officers'_previous_alleged_conduct? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 29 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:George_Floyd_protests#This_is_not_a_riot? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 29 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Header/main_Photo? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1638 days ago on 31 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Draft:Derek_Chauvin? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1638 days ago on 31 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Minneapolis_allows_police_use_of_neck_restraint.? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Black_versus_African_American? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Merger_proposal? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Bias_in_reporting_the_racial_dynamics? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#UK_police_official_statement? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Split_proposal:_Reactions_to_the_killing_of_George_Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:George_Floyd_protests#Reactions_to_the_George_Floyd_protests? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Floyd_had_Covid-19? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1634 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)