Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Closure requests

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfCl)
"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.
"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.
    Shortcuts

    Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

    Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

    Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

    Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

    On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

    There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

    When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

    Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

    Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

    Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

    Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

    Technical instructions for closers

    Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply 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}}.

    If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


    Other areas tracking old discussions

    edit

    Administrative discussions

    edit

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

    edit

    Requests for comment

    edit

    Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

    edit

    (Initiated 82 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

    edit

    (Initiated 79 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Line of Duty#Request for comment: Listing Jed Mercurio in the Infobox as a showrunner

    edit

    (Initiated 62 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA2024, Phase II discussions

    edit

    Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

    Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

    edit

    (Initiated 53 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

    edit

    (Initiated 50 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

    edit

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to point out that at least two of the accounts active on the Talk:Yasuke page in an oppositional role, myself and @Green Caffeine, are not at all SPAs, and we have brought up serious issues with various sources claimed as "reliable". These issues remain unaddressed, and mostly ignored by various editors (unfortunately, including Loki here), who continue to call references "reliable" even after it has been shown that the works have been academically reviewed and described as "historical fiction", and even contain outright fabrication. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

    edit

    (Initiated 29 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

    edit

    Deletion discussions

    edit
    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 0 0 2 2
    TfD 0 0 0 7 7
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 0 1 1
    RfD 0 0 0 18 18
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

    edit

    Other types of closing requests

    edit

    Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza#Requested move 3 May 2024

    edit

    (Initiated 56 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For uninvolved editors, I drafted a closure at WP:DfD which can be drawn from, Tom B (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

    edit

    (Initiated 32 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

    edit

    (Initiated 27 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

    edit

    (Initiated 25 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Together_(coalition)#Requested_move_16_June_2024_2

    edit

    (Initiated 13 days ago on 16 June 2024) A move/rename discussion has taken place here alongside a merge discussion, the merge discussion has reached consensus, and I believe there's a case to be made that there is consensus on the name change, but a third party is required to determine if the discussion should be closed or not. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

    edit
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=1231645487"