Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

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.

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.

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

• 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 81 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 4 days ago on 28 February 2025) This case is ready for administrative resolution and should be addressed promptly, as it could impact multiple recent closures. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 46 days ago on 17 January 2025) The discussion has reached an end, no new arguments are being presented. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 22 January 2025) This should be a relatively easy close. Chetsford (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford, would you please elaborate on why you view this as an easy close? If you're willing to accept "C" as you mentioned, then I agree. If you're asking a closer to weigh the consensus in this RfC versus the consensus discussion on the criteria for enclosure, that might be a little more difficult. Dw31415 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"would you please elaborate on why you view this as an easy close" It seems clear beyond need of explanation to me that it's a consensus C close. That said, anyone who feels that it would be unreasonably difficult for them to close should, of course, feel empowered not to do so without any fear of angst or torment. Whether or not I "accept" C is immaterial as Chetsford is not the King of Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Chetsford, it’s very clear that “C” (which establishes new criteria for inclusion) is the predominant view. I find “C” a little troublesome because it exceeds to scope of the RfC question. Do you have any thoughts for the eventual closer on how to handle this? Dw31415 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, RfCs are a little like grand juries. A grand jury can end-up indicting someone entirely other than the person requested by the prosecutor ... similarly, in an RfC, the community can arrive at any consensus it likes about just about any topic. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I’m new to closing and request another uninvolved editor to review the draft I’ve provided at the top of the RfC. Specifically, many of the respondents call for eliminating the potential candidates section entirely. A potential option that I’m too inexperienced to assess whether this RfC should be modified to focus on that broader question or if it should be left to involved editors to raise a new RfC on that question. Dw31415 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I received a second opinion/ some supervision and will close later tonight, Chicago time. Dw31415 (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dw31415 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 24 January 2025) RfC tag was removed recently. Needs review soon before the bot archives the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies should close this one. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind two or more participants doing a collaborative closure. I bet others assume that one editor suffices. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will support a collaborative closure if someone takes the lead in drafting the closing statement. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 26 January 2025) It's been open for a month, and the RfC tag was removed on 25 February. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion is dormant after running its course after a brief while. Ripe for an uncontroversial close. guninvalid (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 7 February 2025) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote was two days ago and before that was 19th of February. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 15 days ago on 16 February 2025) The discussion has died down. Just in case, I'm requesting closure by uninvolved editor. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 15 days ago on 17 February 2025) This was listed here, closed, taken to AN as a bad NAC and re-opened by the closer[1], and automatically archived from this board[2]. Aaron Liu originally listed it here with the comment "Fizzled out, round in circles, consensus seems clear" which I find sums it up well apart from "consensus seems clear" downplays just how overwhelmingly clear it is. Reposting it as it still needs closure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering closing this, but don't want to blunder into an area I haven't interacted with before. Could somebody please explain what the function of the fringe theories noticeboard is, and what impact an unqualified "yes" consensus could be expected to have? I'm trying to wrap my head around the couple of procedural opposes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think after the previous closure I'd prefer trying to get an admin in, but: WP:FTN is mainly for editors to point out when someone is trying to make edits pushing "fringe theories", i.e. theories that are clearly outside the mainstream. Or at least that's what easily 90% of topics are about.

The point of a "yes" consensus here is to have something to point to when someone tries to make edits pushing certain types of anti-trans misinformation, such as that trans identity is a mental illness.

There's a bunch of active RFCs on similar topics on that noticeboard right now because a) someone tried to revisit the status of a certain organization (SEGM) as widely considered WP:FRINGE and b) during that discussion someone pointed out that what it means for an organization to be WP:FRINGE wasn't well defined and maybe it would be better to try to nail down what actual theories were WP:FRINGE instead. Loki (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: it means it is a fringe theory covered by the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that I think it's better for an admin to close, but also want to note that wrt an area I haven't interacted with before: you did perform an overturned NAC on the Telegraph on trans topics RFC, where the Telegraph's pathologization of trans people was heavily discussed.[3] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "area" I think he meant the Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 11 days ago on 21 February 2025) SilverLocust 💬 11:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather let this keep running. While it looked early on like it was snowballing in favor of C, there's now a fair amount of variety in the newer votes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 21 February 2025) Stale since Feb 27, with much of the attention having shifted to a broader related WikiProject meta-discussion at WT:NBA#Discussion on allowing "greatest" in the lead of all NBA players. Seems like an example of WP:RFC#Reasons and ways to end RfCs point 3: The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum. The project discussion itself may merit its own RfC at some point, but it seems inappropriate to have two related RfCs running in parallel in different venues. Left guide (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 67 days ago on 27 December 2024) Would've tackled closing this one myself, but there's at least a couple of these which probably will get a delete result, and I'm not an admin. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted for technical reasons (the RFD page was too large). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 31 days ago on 1 February 2025) Relisting this because an editor requested that an Admin close the discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]