Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 300 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

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.

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 12 May 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 an RfC opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. Be prepared to wait for someone to review the discussion. If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should 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.

Once a discussion listed on this page has been closed, please add {{Close}} or {{Done}} and a note to the request here, after which the request will be archived.

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM

Could an administrator assess the consensus at the ban discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: ban In ictu oculi from moving articles without going through RM (Initiated 2598 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For better clarity: (Initiated 2598 days ago on 1 May 2017). --George Ho (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (2nd request)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy (Initiated 2692 days ago on 27 January 2017)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a part of the overall discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Concrete_proposal_1, separately below. Without comment on what the results should be, I believe that the overall discussion will be difficult to close, but that Concrete proposal 1, should be very easy to close, and, as the original proposer, I'd rather not see it get lost in the shuffle. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a request for a three-person close of the RfC: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Re-requesting closure of Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 23#Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Investigating COI policy. Closer Primefac (talk · contribs) self-reverted their close and wrote, "I reverted the closure because of concerns with the wording, not with the overall result. Another editor (or two) to add to the close discussion will result in a much more polished result. I see no reason to not partake in that discussion." The other closer, S Marshall (talk · contribs) wrote, "Primefac being uncomfortable with it, I'll accept that the close should be vacated and redone by someone else."

  I am listing this discussion here since Primefac would like another editor or two to participate in another close.

  Cunard (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Milieu 3, Milieu 4, Concrete proposal 1, Concrete proposal 2, and Concrete proposal 3 need separate closures from uninvolved closer(s). I already closed milieu 1, milieu 2, and milieu 5. George Ho (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Milieu 3, Concrete proposal 1 and Concrete proposal 2 have been closed by me.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been thinking. After closing all the milieus and concrete proposals, I wonder whether closing the remainder of the whole discussion as a whole is possible. If not, how about separately closing "RfC discussion" (including Break 1), Break 2, and Break 3? George Ho (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho:--I feel that all discussions need not be closed esp. given that the spectrum is too broad.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Godric. BTW, emailed you. George Ho (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. (Initiated 2671 days ago on 17 February 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at this RfC and perform a close? Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:International Justice Mission#Request for comment on placement of criticism (Initiated 2652 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted due to low participation. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#RfC: Draft classifier template (Initiated 2645 days ago on 15 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#WP:COSMETICBOT update

Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2634 days ago on 26 March 2017) George Ho (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs it. Close should be fairly obvious though, so this isn't a tough one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Erik Prince#RfC: Ties to Trump transition

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Erik Prince#RfC: Ties to Trump transition (Initiated 2623 days ago on 6 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again)

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again) (Initiated 2628 days ago on 1 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Graduate School#RfC about use primary sources in section "Status" (Initiated 2631 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017#RfC rerun: House demolitions

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2017#RfC rerun: House demolitions (Initiated 2630 days ago on 30 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jewish diaspora#RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jewish diaspora#RFC concerning how to present the reasons causing the Diaspora (Initiated 2623 days ago on 6 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Album-oriented rock#RfC: Acknowledging "adult-oriented rock"

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Album-oriented rock#RfC: Acknowledging "adult-oriented rock" (Initiated 2709 days ago on 10 January 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done-Given that this was relisted twice, the discussion is too scarce for a closure.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lithuania#RfC: Lithuania in the USSR debate.

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lithuania#RfC: Lithuania in the USSR debate. (Initiated 2631 days ago on 29 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Generation Snowflake#RFC - article title and NPOV

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Generation Snowflake#RFC - article title and NPOV (Initiated 2634 days ago on 26 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:-No practical use of a closure in such a short discussion.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RfC regarding bolding of sponsored names

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RfC regarding bolding of sponsored names (Initiated 2627 days ago on 2 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Yashovardhan (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted by Yashovardhan Dhanania.Winged Blades ^Godric 04:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) thanks. Was just mentioning this! Yashovardhan (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:US Presidents navbox#RfC about whether the draft is appropriate for a merge

Requesting an uninvolved editor to kindly assess consensus about the draft merge of {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}, which strongly overlap each other. (Initiated 2620 days ago on 9 April 2017) This RfC is the continuation of a previous debate held at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 February 7#Template:US Presidential Administrations (29 January – 3 March), following the process suggested by the closer. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 15:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Waiting time period to upload acceptable non-free images of deceased persons

I'd love to close the RfC myself, even when I'm involved. However, I would prefer someone else to perform the closure instead with a good rationale. (Initiated 2593 days ago on 6 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Winged Blades of Godric Yashovardhan (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Proposed lead section

Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess the outcome of this consensus-building effort on the lead section of a controversial article? (Initiated 2617 days ago on 12 April 2017) — JFG ^talk 19:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Catalan Countries#Request for comment: Opening sentence

(Initiated 2616 days ago on 13 April 2017). A good level of participation, but no clear consensus between two alternatives. An outside close would be appreciated. NAC would be fine. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Working Yashovardhan (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - A tough closure indeed but I tried my best. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Professional Super Smash Bros. competition#RFC on inclusion of material in a number of sections

(Initiated 2610 days ago on 19 April 2017). I believe the consensus is clear after the past three weeks (I'm fine waiting the full month), but at least one editor is acting contrary to the expected consensus, so I'm asking for an experienced, uninvolved editor to close the RFC formally. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Conflicts between WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS

An uninvolved closer is needed. (Initiated 2601 days ago on 28 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey#Aborted_RFC_about_the_lead

(Initiated 2582 days ago on 17 May 2017) Could an uninvolved editor please close this RfC. Although the outcome is clear, a closure will make it less likely that the issue will be relitigated in the near future, as sometimes happens in American Politics articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?

(Initiated 2611 days ago on 17 April 2017) This RfC recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Category:Television_programming_by_language

(Initiated 2674 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Category:Geography_of_Palestine_.28region.29

(Initiated 2674 days ago on 14 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Category:Grand_Princes_of_Tver

(Initiated 2674 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after end of March (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like consensus now (but I also contributed). – Fayenatic London 08:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_17#Category:Moveable_holidays_.28US_Thanksgiving_date_based.29

(Initiated 2671 days ago on 17 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus (but I contributed myself). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_17#Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments

(Initiated 2671 days ago on 17 February 2017) Looks like there is consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Lagardère Sports and Entertainment#Merger Proposal

(Initiated 2702 days ago on 17 January 2017) Stale discussion, needs someone to put it out of its misery please. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted for RFC to increase participation. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Following four discussions were sort of heated (two of them definitely are). As none of the discussions did not achieve consensus, they provide a false impression. Requesting an unbiased closure, based on facts/sources provided in the discussions. this, that, this, and that. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done-The discusion wasn't an RFC.And this is not a place to ask to close random discussions.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: sure. Where should this be taken to? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Where should this be taken to? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Don't care, except that the point I was making was that since these four discussions were not requests for comment, they shouldn't have been listed in the RfCs section of this page, which has four sections, each with a different purpose. They also did not require admin action, and were not pages for deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Redrose64.Winged Blades ^Godric 02:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric and Redrose64: you two geniuses should read this: Wikipedia:Closing discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I already made it clear, we only close RfC and RMs on article talk pages, or if a discussion is especially heated (nuclear). An article talk page is not ANI. We don't close a discussion because a participant thinks it gives the wrong impression. Just make a note of why that is at the bottom of the discussion and any reader can make up their own minds. Insulting editors who are rightly confused by your request is not on. El_C 09:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I apologise. I thought by "we" you meant admins. Wikipedia:Closing discussions states discussions on talkpage of articles can be closed if the situation calls for it.

If @Winged Blades of Godric: was confused by my request or didn't know what can be requested here then he shouldn't have used {not done} template so confidently, and the words "don't know, don't care".

And no, I didn't insult anybody.

Anyways, I closed the discussions. I think there is no point continuing this discussion. I humbly request everybody to cease communication here. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, don't care was not Winged Blades of Godric—that was Redrose64—who told you pretty much what I said before: we, on Wikipedia, don't ordinarily close regular discussions. Calling them "geniuses" is unhelpful, they were just telling you what any one else would have. Your request is unusual. El_C 01:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you decide to close them yourself, really? Why should those threads be frozen? What if someone else wants to continue commenting? You provided no convincing reason for this. Also, you're one of the main participants, it is not objective for you to close those yourself(!). This is starting to become disruptive. El_C 09:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 May#Iznik pottery

Needs uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2589 days ago on 10 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. bd2412 T 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]