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 8 September 2021); 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
Administrative discussions
Thread at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia
(Initiated 12 days ago on 25 September 2021) – Please close/comment at following thread Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia. Last admin comment was at 02/10. --Shrike (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading
Requests for comment
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Formal_proposal:_Olympic_athletes
(Initiated 42 days ago on 26 August 2021) This has been open for over a month; and while there are occasional new contributions; the discussion has probably covered all reasonable aspects of the topic and further prolonging it will only make it a longer wall of text for whoever has to close it at some point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Business_Insider_culture_reporting
(Initiated 40 days ago on 28 August 2021) Requesting closure by an experienced editor or administrator now that the RFC template has expired. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
DoneTalk:Bauhaus (band)#RfC: Quote from Kevin Haskins
(Initiated 30 days ago on 7 September 2021) Five votes have been registered, four 'yes' and one 'no'. Please assess the weight of the various arguments and settle the conflict. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- 30 day extra time extended on 01:26, 5 October 2021. Not yet, a extended 30 day time had recently been demanded because two users appear to have always been supportive of the rfc demander on previous discussion, plus one user has never added any significant historical content in music related articles. We do wait for extra opinion from experts working on A and GA music related articles. Woovee (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Obvious gaming of the system. I am already an expert with four FA articles under my belt, three of which I started. After a month, just about everybody who cares has commented. There are no rules in RfC telling us to extend the discussion because "two users appear to have always been supportive" of some viewpoint. If that were true, no RfC would ever end. When a majority of people hold the same viewpoint we call it consensus and we close the discussion, implementing the decision. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The four articles you promoted GA were NOT music related articles. And your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow,[1], you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,[2] reverting, asking sources. I have never seen you adding anything consistant historically at those articles, sorry, even at the Louis Armstrong article [3]. We should wait for more input from longtime contributors who work on A ansd GA music articles. Woovee (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has never been a requirement for topic expertise to participate in RfCs. You are moving the goalposts; another attempt to game the system in your favor. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- What matters is the quality of the consensus and the arguements written. You are just non-specialist giving a hasty judgement about a band/genre that you have no knowledge on. Regarding your non-expertise on the subject, that's a problem; one should take with circumption the opinion of someone who wrote about a pin-up poster ... their opinion on a musical genre on which they have never posted anything @ wiki . One doesn't ask a photographer to talk about musicology, sorry. Woovee (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has never been a requirement for topic expertise to participate in RfCs. You are moving the goalposts; another attempt to game the system in your favor. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The four articles you promoted GA were NOT music related articles. And your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow,[1], you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,[2] reverting, asking sources. I have never seen you adding anything consistant historically at those articles, sorry, even at the Louis Armstrong article [3]. We should wait for more input from longtime contributors who work on A ansd GA music articles. Woovee (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Obvious gaming of the system. I am already an expert with four FA articles under my belt, three of which I started. After a month, just about everybody who cares has commented. There are no rules in RfC telling us to extend the discussion because "two users appear to have always been supportive" of some viewpoint. If that were true, no RfC would ever end. When a majority of people hold the same viewpoint we call it consensus and we close the discussion, implementing the decision. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- 30 day extra time extended on 01:26, 5 October 2021. Not yet, a extended 30 day time had recently been demanded because two users appear to have always been supportive of the rfc demander on previous discussion, plus one user has never added any significant historical content in music related articles. We do wait for extra opinion from experts working on A and GA music related articles. Woovee (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald_Trump#RFC:_Should_we_mention_historical_evaluations_of_Trump's_presidency? and Talk:Donald_Trump#Possible_wording_for_historical_rankings_sentence
(Initiated 10 days ago on 27 September 2021) I have summarized the discussion at the top of each section, but would still like an uninvolved editor to close it formally. Discussion has slowed significantly and has not been contentious. Cpotisch (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 57 | 0 | 57 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| FfD | 2 | 4 | 43 | 0 | 49 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Australian Strategic Policy Institute#Blog under Press coverage
(Initiated 46 days ago on 22 August 2021) Editors (including me) are not agreeing on what the consensus was; an uninvolved closure of this by an experienced editor/admin might be helpful in ascertaining a consensus or lack thereof. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Tennis:_remove_Fed_Cup_and_Davis_Cup_from_criteria?
(Initiated 37 days ago on 31 August 2021) One editor has objected to there being a "clear consensus", so request an uninvolved closure to determine if there is indeed such a consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Recent Comments