Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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, 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 9 June 2020); 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 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 the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

Billiardball2.png

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

Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.

If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, 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.

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.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.

Requests for closure[edit]

Administrative discussions[edit]

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

RfCs[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies#‎Navigation templates: masculism[edit]

(Initiated 130 days ago on 29 February 2020) Discussion has petered out. May require assessing consensus together with earlier discussion (linked in the RfC). Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe give it a few more days to allow people time to respond to my last comment. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:University of Pittsburgh#RfC about the description of the governance of this university[edit]

(Initiated 121 days ago on 10 March 2020): Can a neutral editor please close this RfC? A bot removed the RfC template a while ago but the discussion was never formally resolved. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Although this has been opened for several months, it might be best to wait one more week; another editor pointed out that this would impact several other articles - other campuses of the same university - so I've just dropped a note about this RfC on the relevant Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?[edit]

(Initiated 71 days ago on 28 April 2020) This discussion has been stale for over a month and is sitting at the top of the VPT. Could an experienced editor please close it? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)#Request_for_comment[edit]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 June 2020) Could an uninvolved editor evaluate the consensus regarding the proposal below? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#RfC: Should ethnicity be removed from the lead?[edit]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus for this RfC, because it seems to me nothing new can be said regarding the issues at hand. I dunno how much should I describe the discussion, but I'll say that a large percentage of responses are based on a lack of understanding of WP policy, guidelines (MOS:ETHNICITY) and also of some plain facts. Thank you, Notrium (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Since this was posted here in a non-neutral fashion, I'll counter that some of the responses seem to be by a banned editor (WP:SOCK) and that many of them seem to miss the point of WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: so you "fix" the "non-neutrality" by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of socking? Notrium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not the place to continue the dispute. If you wish to make your comments go at the SPI, your current behaviour is just WP:BADGER everywhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates[edit]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 June 2020) Formal close requested due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Note - This RfC followed two other main RfCs on this matter a few months earlier, which are discussed in this latest RfC. The older RfCs recently archived. The first one, initiated by MrX, can be found here. The second one, initiated by Smith0124, can be found here. Hope that helps.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfC begins with With this RfC, I’m hoping we can resolve the issue of infobox inclusion criteria, which remain hotly debated for this and other primary elections, such as the Republican primaries., and states Which of the following criteria should be used to determine which candidates are to be included in infoboxes on United States presidential primary election pages, including those for ongoing elections?, which implies the scope of the RfC to be larger than just the Democratic Party primaries. In which case, has this discussion been properly advertised to other parties which may have an interest? I would imagine the topic to be within the scope of, and of particular interest to, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries (it seems there was a similar separate RfC for the Republican primaries). I don't think there has been the proper advertisement to assume consensus for the broad change requested in the RfC, but consensus for a local change can be ascertained. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: That's fine. Can you go ahead and close it with the local consensus? My intent was to advertise it to a wider audience, but I decided not to when it quickly got wrapped up in an ongoing argument between two editors. It started to become difficult to discuss anything other than the issue directly at hand. No discussion was had at any point regarding infoboxes on other election pages, so I'll go ahead and strike those parts of my question. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader, I concur re Tartan's edits indicating limited scope, so it now seems to be properly set for close. Humanengr (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mr. Wrestling II#Sex offender or not?[edit]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 11 June 2020) It has been two weeks since the last substantial addition, but as the discussion topic indicates, this is a controversial subject. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Edward Colston#Request for comment on opening paragraph[edit]

(Initiated 22 days ago on 16 June 2020) Broad consensus has been achieved, but the editor who opened the discussion feels it is better for an uninvolved editor to close it, rather than someone involved in the discussion. Could an uninvolved editor close it? Thanks in advance. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Bengal_cricketers[edit]

(Initiated 19 days ago on 19 June 2020) Too contentious to easily close. PainProf (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I've opened an actual RFC just now as it was only a talk page discussion. I suggest waiting until any discussion from that is finished. Jerod Lycett (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
V Apr May Jun Jul Total
CfD 0 0 89 11 100
TfD 0 0 0 10 10
MfD 0 0 5 1 6
FfD 6 30 3 5 44
AfD 0 0 52 15 67

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 16#Multiple_Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._episode_posters[edit]

(Initiated 22 days ago on 16 June 2020) This DRV is in need of close by someone familiar with FFD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 17#Lana_Rhoades[edit]

(Initiated 22 days ago on 17 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this DRV discussion. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 25#Caste-based_prostitution[edit]

(Initiated 14 days ago on 25 June 2020) Could an experienced editor do this one too, please?—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:Jean_Sibelius/Archive_3#Infobox?[edit]

(Initiated 1722 days ago on 21 October 2015) Could someone finally close this 5-year-old discussion that already reached a consensus? The apparently "still on-going" discussion is being used by involved editors from back then as a pretext for reverting any addition of an infobox to Jean Sibelius by new users even 5 years later. --MiniCacti (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Old, unclosed discussions expire over time, and that discussion has languished unclosed for five years. I don't think closing a five-year-old discussion now is the right way to end that edit war. Maybe an uninvolved sysop will step in and restore order, though.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Fast_N'_Loud_episodes#Split / Lynn Anderson discography[edit]

(Initiated 358 days ago on 16 July 2019) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split? Also, on a side note, there is a complete lack of split/move/history attribution for Lynn Anderson discography, Lynn Anderson singles discography and Lynn Anderson albums discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: The Lynn Anderson issues are nothing to do with any of the threads at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes or its subject page. It's also nothing to do with this page, which is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Please do not put multiple unrelated requests under the same heading; this is not the first time that you have done this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippines-related articles#Revisiting the comma convention for article titles of municipalities[edit]

(Initiated 109 days ago on 21 March 2020) May I request for a neutral admin or other uninvolved editors to review this discussion (which also included a renewed discussion began by me under Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippines-related articles#Renewed discussion on articles on uniquely-named municipalities)? The whole discussion was began in late March, while the renewed discussion was began in late June. Can someone also assess the consensus of the discussion? Thanks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks#Merger proposal[edit]

(Initiated 104 days ago on 27 March 2020) It was difficult getting feedback on whether to merge three pages together due to repeating the same information. Would an experienced editor assist in closing the discussion? Thank you. lullabying (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 May#Islamization of East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 19 May 2020) – Please, this needs to be closed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)[edit]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_297#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:London Underground C Stock#Requested move 30 June 2020[edit]

(Initiated 8 days ago on 30 June 2020) I'm not sure if this is the right place, but can someone please review the move discussion at Talk:London Underground C Stock#Requested move 30 June 2020? C2A06 (AboutTalkEdits) 17:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Recuse I have felt it necessary to revert C2A06's edits on at least two separate occasions, when they attempted to pre-empt the outcome of the discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Can someone who is uninvolved please close the discussion? C2A06 (AboutTalkEdits) 05:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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