This page has an
administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{ no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
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.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{ Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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.
(Initiated 125 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin ( talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 123 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 ( talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer ( talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford ( talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 47 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 27 |
(Initiated 111 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 ( talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 105 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 92 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 79 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 73 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
This page has an
administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{ no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
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.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{ Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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.
(Initiated 125 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin ( talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 123 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 ( talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer ( talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford ( talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 23 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 47 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 27 |
(Initiated 111 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 ( talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 105 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 ( talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. 98.228.137.44 ( talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 92 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 86 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 79 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 73 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux ( talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 ( talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)