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.
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
edit- 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
edit(Initiated 43 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the
{{User:MiszaBot/config}}
at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter|algo=old(7d)
which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC) - There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. Will notoify both users of the result. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 21 November 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. If successful, I can take care of sending it to the stewards. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. @EggRoll97: go for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
editRequests for comment
editWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?
edit(Initiated 63 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
editDeletion discussions
editV | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 97 | 0 | 97 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
(Initiated 41 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
editOther types of closing requests
edit(Initiated 319 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Allan Nonymous: do you still plan to close this? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about this, I forgot I had this outstanding :). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Allan Nonymous: do you still plan to close this? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)