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 |
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
- 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
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 91 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)
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)
(Initiated 89 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 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)
Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Done Chrhns (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 67 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 64 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 64 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 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)
- Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 28 May 2024)
Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 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)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 31 May 2024)Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 2 June 2024)Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 36 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 June 2024)Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 8 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 2 | 12 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 47 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 164 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 160 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 136 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 136 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 136 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 136 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 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)
- update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- (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)
- Closed by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 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)
(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 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)
- Done by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- DoneDisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 days ago on 21 June 2024)Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)