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 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.

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 7 May 2024); 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}}.

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#User:Homeostasis07 disruptive_behavior

(Initiated 983 days ago on 27 September 2021) ANI thread that has been open for a while. Discussion has stalled recently but consensus is not obvious, so it would benefit from an administrative close. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC on alphabetization of extended-latin characters (eg "ä" etc)

(Initiated 1007 days ago on 3 September 2021) RFC template expired, long ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#RfC:_Linking_non-major_countries

(Initiated 963 days ago on 17 October 2021) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at this expired RfC? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_359#GEOnet_Names_Server_(GNS)

(Initiated 941 days ago on 8 November 2021) This RSN discussion has been archived without being closed. Due to the high impact of the source this deserves a formal close. FOARP (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Personally, I don't see that as closable, because the apparent consensus would lead to wide-ranging and impactful changes, and I don't think that discussion has sufficient participation to enact changes of that magnitude. Another closer might differ from me.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall - Didn't the same thing happen recently with GNIS, which is equally as prominent a source? Or if more participation is needed, then a re-list for another seven days might be a good idea? FOARP (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe advertise it on WP:CENT?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that it needs relisting (EDIT: to be clear, I have no idea to how to do this other than by cutting/pasting, which is normally a no-no in most of Wiki's systems). Either that or start a new one? But that seems likely to draw objections for having a new discussion so soon after the last one. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:J._K._Rowling#RFC_on_lead_sentence

(Initiated 924 days ago on 25 November 2021) SNOW close (15-0-0 in terms of option votes), but since I started the RfC don't wish to close it myself. However, closing it would allow us to move to a subsequent point of discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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", "When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure". Colonestarrice (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz: meaning you are not only allowed but also encouraged to close it yourself if WP:SNOW applies. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10#Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

(Initiated 1061 days ago on 11 July 2021) Has been open for four and a half months, only one comment in the last month. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

Other types of closing requests

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading