Wikipedia:Closure requests
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
[edit]- 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
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
[edit]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus
[edit](Initiated 17 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 84 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 [1]. No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now archived. An uninvolved closer is still requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 15 November 2024) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 40 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 4 days ago on 26 December 2024) Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- give it more time. Usually need longer than just 4 days since RFC start, unless it is clearly overwhelming support (see WP:SNOW). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not a good idea to close this yet by the sounds of it, based on WP:UPHILLBATTLE. CNC (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done per above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 15 November 2024) Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg
[edit]_by_Ólöf_Pálsdóttir.jpg){kind=link}
(Initiated 33 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 3 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 96 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 73 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 December 2024) Has been open for nearly a month, I have !voted here so requesting an uninvolved closure. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)