Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

"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 23 May 2025); 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.

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

Requests for comment

6 Week RFC type discussion at WP:Notability

(Initiated 1520 days ago on 23 April 2021) This was a 6 week discussion which was not formally identified as an RFC but was structured and discussed like one. I proposed a close and waited several weeks and then tried an edit based on it and was reverted based on there not being a close, which is fine. Would it be possible to get an admin close at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Uyghur genocide#RfC on the first sentence of the lead

(Initiated 1513 days ago on 30 April 2021) Requesting closure from an experienced and uninvolved editor. Thanks! — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Restricting_GFDL-licensed_uploads

(Initiated 1503 days ago on 10 May 2021) I think the result is clear even if comments from IP-users is included but since I made the proposal someone uninvolved should conclude. In case someone might find it relevant I can add that I do not think it is possible to make the result more clear by modifying the proposal. Thank you, --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I originally set the date in my suggestion to "1 July 2021". If it is a problem that the date is now past then I do not mind if it is set to "1 August 2021" for example or the date when the proposal is closed. I just do not want to change the proposal and risk that we have to start all over. I hope someone will help me fix the possible problem I created. --MGA73 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_345#RfC:_WikiLeaks

(Initiated 1501 days ago on 12 May 2021) Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. Thank you. PS. Previous request to close by administrator denied, but 30 days has passed and the discussion is not particularly active. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone has archived the RfC in the meantime. The link has been updated to reflect this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#RFC:_Disease_/_pandemic_origins.

(Initiated 1488 days ago on 25 May 2021) Requesting uninvolved closure. Thank you all! CatDamon (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information#RFC: Disease / pandemic origins.

As of right now, there are 328,367 characters in this gigantic RfC. Several people have requested closure, and the survey stands at about 19 supports to 50 opposes. I am, of course, involved. A previous request for closure was made on this page 22 days ago, which doesn't seem to have been responded to. jp×g 17:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, CatDamon, I think there are a few problems: yeah, it's long, so TLDR for many. I won't read the whole thing either. And both sides have reasonable arguments. And it's so big that nobody wants to risk angering that many people. I could close it, but I'd prefer if it was closed by three people - so two more uninvolved editors, so the close itself doesn't become controversial. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#Abraham accords RfC

(Initiated 1484 days ago on 29 May 2021) This would benefit from a formal, thoughtful closure to sift through the policy arguments made both for and against the suggestion and come to a conclusion on the consensus regarding the change. Additions to the discussion have been... trickling at best (most recent 6 days ago, second most recent 16) from editors new to the RfC/discussion, and as such I doubt keeping it open any longer is going to draw any more thoughtful opinions (nobody wants to touch this topic area anyway, it seems). Just as a note, I've placed a {{DNAU}} on the subthread for 31 days (to expire July 31 UTC), if this isn't actioned on and anyone wants to extend that further it would likely help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Azov_Battalion#RfC: Azov Battalion

(Initiated 1483 days ago on 30 May 2021)  —Michael Z. 18:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Second Cold War#Add lead image?

(Initiated 1482 days ago on 31 May 2021) Last vote was less than two weeks ago. Need uninvolved editor. George Ho (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure should also include subsections of the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RFC (lead sentence link)

(Initiated 1474 days ago on 8 June 2021) No new comments in over a week, and an involved close is needed here. Thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think that this should probably go the full 30 days, and I don't feel 100% comfortable closing it right now. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	0	43	43
TfD	0	0	2	7	9
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	9	10
RfD	0	0	0	47	47
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Wikipedia article challenge templates

(Initiated 1503 days ago on 10 May 2021) the discussion is no longer active. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 2#Template:Total lunar eclipse contacts

(Initiated 1489 days ago on 24 May 2021) the discussion is no longer active. Frietjes (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does_common_sense_point_to_a_lab_leak_origin?#User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?

(Initiated 1463 days ago on 19 June 2021) This has been going on for a while. There's a couple policy-based arguments on both sides involving the wide latitude of user space, the impact of indefinite topic bans, and many other PAG arguments. Can we get a closure? Lab leak discussions soak up a lot of time, and usually devolve into arguments about the leak itself and not the page. The discussion itself about policies etc. is now becoming cyclical, and no new points have been made in several days. It would be very helpful if an uninvolved admin could come close this before that happens. Thank you.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:China COVID-19 cover-up

(Initiated 1463 days ago on 19 June 2021), this may be a complex closure. Some discussions are about the venue, others about the content. The closer will need to evaluate the ground rules to close it under. It is about a Draft: space item that may or may not be ready for main space and which may or may not be subject to AfD should it arrive there. Closing this discussion will allow whatever should happen next to happen. That includes deletion, moving to mainspace, acceptance at AfC by a reviewer (or others), and later AfD if nominated. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Timtrent: would you recommend leaving this to an admin, or would I be OK to take a look? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10 I think, when you take a look, you will see that it will be a challenging non admin closure.

  There is much to consider and all uninvolved opinions are important and welcome. I think it will be a difficult close, likely to be challenged, and will require a well argued and well rounded closing rationale whatever the decision is. I do think it is time to close this so that the decision is made and interested parties can move on in whatever direction the close makes happen. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Medici Chapel#Merge proposal

(Initiated 1844 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an uninvolved editor please consider the consensus for Dawn (Michelangelo) and Dusk (Michelangelo) to the Medici Chapel, with discussion at Talk:Medici Chapel#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Baten Kaitos#Redirect Baten Kaitos

(Initiated 1761 days ago on 25 August 2020) I request an uninvolved editor to close the debate about whether Baten Kaitos should or should not be a disambiguation page, in order to stop frequent toing-and-froing involving a small number of editors and a relatively minor page. The reviewer would need to read the discussions at Talk:Baten Kaitos#Redirect Baten Kaitos and at Talk:Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I second this closure request. The consensus is clear with only one editor objecting. Skyerise (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_136#"Many_of_his_comments_and_actions_have_been_characterized_as_racially_charged_or_racist."

(Initiated 1521 days ago on 23 April 2021) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review#2021 storming of the United States Capitol

(Initiated 1481 days ago on 1 June 2021) This particularly contentious move review follows a contentious requested move closed by an non-admin. Given the heated discussion in both venues, it may be advisable for an experienced admin closer (or even admin panel) to fairly address valid concerns from both sides in this discussion. Only two additional disposition assertions in last 7 days, but lots of chatter from previous !voters. (full disclosure: I have participated in both the RM and MR processes) BusterD (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I second that this is ready for closure. Last vote was on June 17. I agree that this is a contentious one and needs an admin to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Module talk:Message box#Fully-protected edit request on 27 June 2021

(Initiated 1455 days ago on 27 June 2021) Somebody please close Module talk:Message box#Fully-protected edit request on 27 June 2021 (and possibly the preliminary thread at Template talk:Ambox#Why is ambox the only message box which the "small" parameter works with?) - it's going nowhere fast. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Britannia (TV series)#allegation of Plagiarism and Fraud

Can we please close this now, two SPA (one a with a total COI, that was blocked for sock and then unblocked by arbcom for no reason that I can see as they are a pure SPA) are just making the same arguments again and again and just not listening. It is totally circular and one massive BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)