Wikipedia:Closure requests
 Archives | |
|
|
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 15 April 2026); 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
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive339#Closure review: Portal links on the Main Page's top banner
(Initiated 1609 days ago on 18 December 2021) Close challenge that itself needs a close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
T-Ban appeal
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 13 January 2022) A request at ANI to lift a T-ban under the heading of "Second Chance" ran for 8 days but the conversation dried up. It was then bot archived before a decision was made one way or another. I would appreciate it if someone would formally close the discussion. Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: the appeal is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Second Chance. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance#RfC: Legal analysis section
(Initiated 1959 days ago on 2 January 2021) RfC is well past due. This RfC seems to have fallen through the cracks. Jehochman Talk 16:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Lachin#RFC: Looting, destruction, and violence in_Lachin 1992-1993
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 17 November 2021) - RfC is expired. Can an uninvolved user or an admin close it? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory
(Initiated 1630 days ago on 26 November 2021) - could an uninvolved, experienced editor close this? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 10:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Request for comment: sortability, scope metadata, order
(Initiated 1617 days ago on 9 December 2021) The RFC tag has expired, after one month. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Responses - 5P RFC
(Initiated 1609 days ago on 17 December 2021) RfC has expired and discussion fizzled out. Curbon7 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#RFC: Structure of Mass killings under communist regimes
(Initiated 1608 days ago on 19 December 2021) The RFC tag has expired. We need a decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - A panel close was required for the AfD on this subject, but fortunately, I don't think a panel close will be required for the RfC, as most of it looks much less contentious. It might be a good idea to request an administrator close instead of a non-admin close, however, just to be safe? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Request for comments - honorifics for antipopes
(Initiated 1603 days ago on 23 December 2021) Active discussion has ended among current participants. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 245 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
CfD backlog
The backlog at WP:CFD reached an all-time high. If only 10 administrators would close 20 discussions each the problem would be solved though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it's not an all-time high yet; the backlog was larger in October 2020 (Special:PermaLink/984936361). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Guy Standing (economist)#Extended confirm protection too much?
(Initiated 1710 days ago on 7 September 2021) Discussion that needs closing, possibly by an administrator if the consensus is to unprotect the article. ––FormalDude 
talk 02:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies#Merge from Social construct theory of ADHD
(Initiated 1687 days ago on 1 October 2021) Hi, could someone take a look at the merge proposal on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies? I previously closed it but the closure was contested (there was also a further discussion on my talk page) and the merge was partially reverted. Relevant WikiProjects were notified again, with some additional input added. Because the closure was contested previously, my understanding is that it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved editor to close it. Note that there is a related comment under a later section Cheers. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use
(Initiated 1625 days ago on 1 December 2021) I wonder whether a closure is necessary. If a bot archives the discussion before closing, then closure would be taken as not necessary. Right? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- It wasn't entirely expected but I think we're making some progress again. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)