"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.
Shortcuts

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.

Billiardball1.png

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 June 2022); 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.

Billiardball2.png

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.

Billiardball3.png

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

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alansohn - Repeated Violation of IBAN

(Initiated 42 days ago on 30 May 2022) I request that this be formally closed. It appears that there may be a consensus here, but the result of the discussion needs to be logged. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#RfC_about_Metacritic_in_Critical_Reception_sections

(Initiated 388 days ago on 19 June 2021) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Piped link#RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes

(Initiated 323 days ago on 22 August 2021) Requesting closure of this RFC by an uninvolved editor. Hwy43 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Italian Social Movement#RFC: Italian Social Movement political position

(Initiated 78 days ago on 24 April 2022) RFC tag expired two days ago, and discussion has stopped since weeks, so it needs a formal closure. Already the OP took initiative and decided the RFC result without a proper closure, and they might try to do this again soon. Yakme (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This type of allusions (to which the user is not new) seems to me inappropriate and rather out of place. Until now there was a clear consensus for one of the three options, after two months of Rfc I limited myself to realizing the result of the Rfc, it was my prerogative. However, another user intervened today (after the expiration of the RFC, to tell the truth) and this slightly called into question the balance of consensus. Perhaps the best solution would be to further extend the RFC and seek the opinion of other users, to have a more defined result.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I voted for the option you favor, so I am sort of shooting myself in the foot here, but your methods of working here are totally unacceptable. (1) A 5–3 majority is not automatically a proof of consensus, let alone proof of "clear" consensus; (2) it was not your "prerogative" to "realize" the result of the RfC by yourself and also act on it by editing the page accordingly; (3) I don't think it's forbidden for users to give their opinions after the expiration of the RfC, their opinion is still valid; (4) I am not against extending the RFC, however this has already gone for more than 2 months. Yakme (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is quite irrelevant if you consider "unacceptable" a prerogative provided by the rules of Wikipedia. You are free to challenge my interpretation of the result and request closure from an uninvolved user, but not to contest prerogatives explicitly provided by Wikipedia itself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You simply do not have the "prerogative" to determine a non-trivial result of an RFC started by you, period. Anyway let's wait for a proper closure. Yakme (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_for_how_we_refer_to_the_nationalities_of_bands_with_mixed_line-ups

(Initiated 75 days ago on 27 April 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of political parties in Italy#RFC on Structure of Lists of Italian Political Parties

(Initiated 73 days ago on 29 April 2022) We have decided to close this RFC to partially rewrite it and start a new one. A formal closure is necessary in order not to create confusion with the new RFC that will be started. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SDC's closure request. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Isabelle Belato: Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is now at AN/I.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the ANI thread closed yesterday. I'll ask on the article talk page if the participants there still wish the RfC to be closed. Question asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfC would benefit from closing just so it's done. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second this: could this RFC be closed soon, so that we can move forward? The article is laying in a limbo since months at this point. Yakme (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RfC: Should band navboxes list members that don't have their own articles or which redirect to their bands?

(Initiated 51 days ago on 21 May 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles

(Initiated 41 days ago on 31 May 2022) Requesting closure of RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles. This discussion has stagnated for long periods of time and there is no new arguments being added. It would be helpful if the closer had knowledge of Wikipedia naming guidelines, notability guidelines, and potentially a basic knowledge of history or linguistics. Poketama (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be helpful if the closer could wade through a morass of discussion caused by a poorly-formatted and vague RfC. What is really needed is a more focused question, rather than some request that Indigenous names must be included in lede and infobox regardless of appropriateness or reliable sourcing. Consensus from experienced editors seems to be that these should be included on a case by case basis according to existing Wikipolicy, rather than mandated. The WP:SPA nature of editor raising the RfC should laso be noted. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I edited in a clarification on the question shortly after posting the RfC and I think it can be resolved from the content of the discussion what the result was, rather than re-doing an RfC that has taken months. Users who were unsure of the meaning of the question still gave thorough explanations of their opinions, which can be used to reach consensus.
Additionally, the meaning of the question has repeatedly been explained to Pete. I'll note that Pete is one of the primary parties in the dispute and thanked me for starting the RfC, as well as doing the formatting of the RfC themselves (See here: User_talk:Poketama#RfC) Poketama (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Still the question is poorly formed and the discussion consequently rambling. Making Indigenous placenames mandatory in the lead - for that is the effect your question seeks - is very poor wikipolicy. There may be no reliable sources, and WP:UNDUE always applies. The way forward, as found in discussion aimed at resolving the RfC, is for involved editors to collaborate in writing an essay giving guidance for the case-by-case decisions favoured by most respondents. Your contributions in that effort would be most welcome; this is something we have to get right and opening the gates for crusaders from either side is just going to turn Australian geographical articles into a bitter morass for years as cultural warriors throw stones at one another. We work together to produce a useful and respected encyclopaedia, not to sing our team songs as we piss in our opponents' beer. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC tag shouldn't have been deleted, but rather left to expire. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should an RFC not be allowed 30 days prior to closure? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:FB_MSBS_Grot#RfC

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 June 2022) Request closure of RfC by an uninvolved editor as consensus is unclear. Gusfriend (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Survey_(showing_editnotices_on_mobile)

(Initiated 7 days ago on 4 July 2022) - Discussion has only been open for a week, but it appears to be snowing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 10 166 41 217
TfD 0 0 0 3 3
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 1 1
RfD 0 0 14 4 18
AfD 0 0 0 50 50

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12#😕

(Initiated 69 days ago on 3 May 2022) the last vote (mine) was 22 days ago as of posting. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#File talk:3amdigital.jpg

(Initiated 11 days ago on 30 June 2022) Seems to trend towards a keep. Won't do it myself since I voted (but retracted the vote). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#File talk:688 Club logo.jpg

(Initiated 11 days ago on 30 June 2022) Seems to trend towards a keep. Won't do it myself since I voted (but retracted the vote). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#Merge requests

(Initiated 348 days ago on 28 July 2021) Major backlog of requests needing closure czar 17:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Uezd#Rename articles about uezds for consistency

(Initiated 217 days ago on 6 December 2021) Last comment was posted 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC). —Michael Z. 20:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFC

(Initiated 117 days ago on 16 March 2022) Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs#Proposal_to_update_the_project's_RS_guideline

(Initiated 110 days ago on 23 March 2022) No comments since May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Requested move 30 May 2022

(Initiated 42 days ago on 30 May 2022) Becoming protracted and unwieldy. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Overcategorisation?

(Initiated 35 days ago on 6 June 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jane's Revenge#Proposed merge of Timeline of Jane's Revenge attacks into Jane's Revenge

(Initiated 12 days ago on 29 June 2022) There have been no new comments since July 1 and I am requesting uninvolved closure. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:NGO Monitor#partisan counterpoint

(Initiated 8 days ago on 3 July 2022) – Is just going round in circles with one user insisting on (what looks like OR) be inserted in the lede. It is not going to get resolved as the user has refused )it seems to me) any compromise text, and has offered no alternatives to their version. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on - I have suggested several compromise alternatives, and all my additions (which have been reverted with false claims) have been fully sourced. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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