Wikipedia:Closure requests - Test Wikipedia
|
|
| no archives yet (create) |
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 7 August 2024); 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 and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. 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. 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}}.
- 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
(Initiated 2837 days ago on 29 November 2016) TestA –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 242 days ago on 7 January 2024) TestB –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
(Initiated 4346 days ago on 13 October 2012) This RfC has been dragging on for more than a month. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This has several comments just today, not ready for closing yet in my opinion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 339 days ago on 3 October 2023) Closure recently overturned. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with the editors at the close review who noted that a close is not needed here, particularly your comment @Aaron Liu that everything "will be passed on" to WMF "regardless". voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 317 days ago on 24 October 2023) Could someone please formally close this RFC? Thank you. Grandmaster 10:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 315 days ago on 26 October 2023) The discussion is ripe for closure, there has been little activity in the past two weeks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 307 days ago on 3 November 2023) Getting close to 30 days. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
(Initiated 370 days ago on 2 September 2023) Test –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 328 days ago on 14 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 325 days ago on 16 October 2023)
Four proposed options for retargetting, besides !votes to keep or delete. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
(Initiated 598 days ago on 16 January 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge Bigod's rebellion into Pilgrimage of Grace. Klbrain (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 569 days ago on 14 February 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge Statue of Émilie Gamelin into Émilie Gamelin. Klbrain (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 465 days ago on 29 May 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge Type 3 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. Klbrain (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This proposal was never mentioned at the target page, Alzheimer's disease. Given that is a much more frequently viewed article, I have tagged it in the hope of getting more engagement / evidence of consensus about this proposed merge. Mgp28 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 345 days ago on 27 September 2023) - Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge and/or rename CollegeHumor? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 336 days ago on 6 October 2023) Protected edit request became a full-scale discussion, and appears to have stalled. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{tick}}Request marked as "not done" (and "answered") by Firefangledfeathers. SilverLocust 💬 11:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]- Reopened I marked the edit request as answered because edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes, and it was evident that the requested change was controversial. After much discussion, it's reasonable for participants to request outside consensus assessment and closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been archived, so I will mark this as Closed . SilverLocust 💬 06:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopened I marked the edit request as answered because edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes, and it was evident that the requested change was controversial. After much discussion, it's reasonable for participants to request outside consensus assessment and closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 327 days ago on 14 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 316 days ago on 25 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 312 days ago on 29 October 2023) I am surprised such small articles have generated such a complicated discussion. Please could someone close this merge discussion thanks. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 300 days ago on 10 November 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 305 days ago on 5 November 2023) estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 339 days ago on 2 October 2023) No comments in twenty-one days, could an uninvolved editor assess? HappyWith (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 291 days ago on 19 November 2023) 42 comments, 7 people, no comment for two days. To the surprise of both sides, there was firm disagreement. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 56 days ago on 11 July 2024) lkasghaslkj –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]