Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 3

Requested move 15 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: There is consensus to move the page, as per the nominator's rationale that closing is not exclusively the purview of administrators. However, there is no consensus to move to the specific title proposed, as many editors were concerned by the potential confusion from the shortcut WP:RFC already being taken. Editors may wish to start a follow-up discussion about one or more of the proposed alternatives. (non-admin closure) &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure → Requests for closure – The closing of content discussions is not an administrative matter. The community affirmed this in a 2012 RfC, and it's quite strongly established currently. The vast majority of discussions advertised on this page are content discussions (RfCs or talk page discussions). Whilst a very small minority are discussions that only admins can close (such as DRVs), they are a very small minority and are separated into a separate section anyway. The page title should be moved away from a subpage of AN for these reasons. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom, any established, uninvolved editor can close most RfCs. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, seems reasonable. signed,Rosguill talk 22:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, a request that makes quite a bit of sense, considering workloads and misconceptions and all. GenQuest  "scribble" 07:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Needs a different three letter acronym. WP:RFC is already taken. Suggest Discussions for Closure, abbreviated to DFC. We can hijack the old, disused redirect that's already in place.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this suggestion - the essential thing is that these are "requests" for closure, not discussions (it's the discussions for which closures are sought). Are 3 letters material? Why not retain WP:RFCLOSE (aka Requests for Closure), redirected to the renamed page?--Smerus (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think that the abbreviation ANRFC creates a lot of confusion, and I don't think RFCLOSE is very helpful either. A lot of people think this page is all about closing RFCs.  I'm not married to "Discussions for closure", and would be happy to consider alternatives, but I don't think they should include the three letters "RFC" because of that confusion.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the reasons to move, but as per S Marshall a page with the acronym WP:RFC isn't ideal. We might find that one set of misconceptions is simply replaced with another. It doesn't have to be three letters, although it looks like WP:DCR (Discussion Closure Requests) is available. Sunrise (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the current proposal, but if an alternate is desired to avoid using the acronym RFC, WP:Closure requests would work. WP:CR currently redirects to WP:Cleanup resources. -- Calidum  00:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No opposition to Closure requests from me. We can hijack WP:CR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 01:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose move - I do oppose the move, because the current title is fine. However, if we are going to move this page, let's move it to something that has an acronym that is not taken already, such as WP:DCR (Discussion Closure Requests). --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very few of the discussions listed at WP:ANRFC can be considered "easy closures", and so most listed discussions should be closed by admins (or very experienced non-admins). Non-admins are asked to close only those discussions that have garnered a more obvious consensus. Most discussions listed on this page have not. So while I agree that, the closing of these particular requests most certainly is an administrative matter.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 23:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just not true. Non-admins can close any content discussion, regardless of how contentious it may be. Of course, a brand new editor or one with no understanding of relevant PAGs shouldn’t (and they generally don’t, the few times they do they self revert or consensus @ AN does). “Trust the editors have common sense” has, on the whole, seemed to work well to date afaik.  ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say that non-admins "can't close any content discussion", so I'm sorry if you misunderstood my words, and I take full responsibility for your misunderstanding. Yes, AGF and "trust the editors have common sense" has and does work well. The thing is, while many experienced editors monitor this page and do sometimes close contentious discussions, even they seem to know when they should leave it to an editor who has been vetted by the community to become an admin, an editor that the community trusts to do such things. That is why this page should remain on the admin noticeboard.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've decided to call for a speedy procedural close of this move request. Some of the supporting editors are pretty inexperienced. And while the nom's heart appears to be in the right place, it is evident that the whole premise of this request is misguided, because editors come to this page to ask admins and/or very experienced non-admins to close these discussions. It is misguided to think that this page should be removed from the administrators' noticeboard.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the supporting editors are pretty inexperienced. How did you come to this conclusion? Buidhe is a highly experienced content editor, regular closer of RfCs and active at FAC. Rosguill is an admin. GenQuest is an active editor from 2008. Sunrise is an active editor since 2007. Spy-circle is, also, an experienced editor. Really, the only opposition excluding Jax and now yourself is on the basis that "Requests for closure (RFC)" conflicts with WP:Requests for comment (RFC), and that a different name is needed for a unique shortcut. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As might be expected, we disagree on the level of experience of some of these editors based upon our stand in this request. Yes, Buidhe is well-honed and Rosguill is thus far the only admin to chime in. If I were an admin I would probably support your premise in theory because I would not want to raise the hairs on the back of your neck too high. The others have varying degrees of experience; however, how much of that experience includes closing contentious discussions? I still say your premise, while made in good faith, is sorely misguided. Apologies because I usually agree with you on other issues, but unfortunately not this time.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The disagreement is fine (and natural - two people will never agree on everything all the time), but I don't see any basis for a "speedy procedural close". Even if you were right in that most commenting are inexperienced, and I don't think that's true at all (also Sunrise is also an active RfC closer, including policy RfCs and Israel-Palestine ones, I suspect the others have experience too), it's still no basis for closure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainly, it is your premise, with which I strongly disagree, that moved me to ask for a speedy close. You just don't seem to get how wrong it would be to remove this page from the AN... very very wrong!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Per, it doesn't look like it's the case that inexperienced non-admins are the only ones (or are even the majority of those) who are in the support camp. There doesn't seem to be a sound reason for a speedy procedural close that has been put forward yet, so I don't think that such a closure is appropriate at this time. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support moving the page Many of the requests for closure being made on the page are not for closures by admins, but instead by closures from uninvolved editors who are experienced. I don't have strong concerns about three-letter acronyms being needed here, and I am fine with WP:RFCLOSE being the main shorthand for the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. To address 's concern, this is without prejudice to someone rewording the 1-2-3 instructions on assessing consensus at the top of the page or even using an mbox to convey the CIR message. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   17:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure → Closure requests – The section immediately above found a consensus to move this page away from a subpage of the AN, but did not find a consensus on an appropriate target name. Suggesting Closure requests and hijacking the shortcut (CR), as suggested by Calidum above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping prior participants: . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support I should note that in addition to my comment on the previous discussion, not all discussions listed on this page are unusually difficult to close. Some are listed because one person won't drop the stick and a formal closure is therefore necessary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - a shorter and better name. Gnominite (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC) CU-confirmed sock, please see Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden --Blablubbs&#124;talk 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose move - I do oppose the move, because the current title is fine. However, if we are going to move this page, let's move it to something that has an acronym that is not taken already, such as WP:DCR (Discussion Closure Requests). __Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the points raised above in the prior discussion. -- Calidum  15:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per the points I raised in the previous discussion. The proposed name is shorter and better, and I believe WP:CRQ would do fine, but I would also support hijacking the shortcut to WP:CR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reason as the previous proposal. signed,Rosguill talk 16:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support -- clear and obvious improvement.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Smerus (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Feel like that "one (or two) voice in the wilderness" here. Still think it's a big mistake to remove theses requests from the admin noticeboard. says . No they're not for experienced editors like yourself. Less experienced editors make more mistakes even on easy-to-close discussions. Editors come to this page hoping for their discussion to be closed by an admin or very experienced non-admin. So this rename will not be an improvement for this project.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 20:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, though I prefer Requests for closure. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 15:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: Also prefer re-focusing the Requests for closure redirect as the target.  GenQuest  "scribble" 13:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not matter al all, as I guess most editors only see it transcluded to AN, and it is immaterial under which name it is transcluded.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, shorter is better.  Sandstein   11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I read the current title as implying it is only for closure requests of WP:AN threads.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support basically per nom and Ymblanter. Re the concern over hijacking WP:CR; well, this page has gotten 2,365 pageviews over the last 30 days, while WP:CR has got, err, 155, so it's pretty clear which is the more useful. Conversely, the suggestion that WP:RFC should redirect here instead of WP:Requests for closure also falls on the brown numbers: WP:RFC received 1,714 pageviews over 30 days, which is sufficiently close to this page to indicate how entrenched it is in the Wikipedian's psychob (unlike, WP:CR, of which clearly few have ever heard). ——  Serial  11:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Changing the name and location doesn't change the fact that straight forward discussions can be closed by anyone with sufficient experience, and the most complicated and contentious discussions should be closed by admin. Since closing discussions has never been an exclusively admin thing, this makes sense.  A rose by any other name, so lets lean towards simplicity. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Not all closures need to be made by administrators, so it really doesn't fit under administrator's noticeboard requests for closures.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per SmokeyJoe and Dennis Brown  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  12:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above and also support hijacking the redirect per above. Levivich harass/hound 15:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Don't really see a burning need for it, but why not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Sensible, and avoids the "Administrator's" name, which seems cause non-admins to shy away from performing much-needed closures.  -  F ASTILY   04:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Accurately summarizes what the function and purpose of this page have long been. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CR shortcut
There is a redirect discussion on whether the CR shortcut should be retargeted to this noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   12:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sectioning
As pointed out above, the sectioning of this noticeboard doesn't make much sense. It's not clear what an "administrative discussion" is, and for the rest, I'm not sure how helpful it is to separate by RfC vs. non-RfC as opposed to content vs. policy/other. It'd also be nice to have a section for time-sensitive discussions, which are rare but not nonexistent (it hopefully wouldn't be abused). Could we discuss how to section better here and implement a change? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about closing a discussion
Is it appropriate for an involved editor to close a discussion while it is still ongoing? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably not, except for clear WP:SNOW cases. See for example Talk page guidelines; Closing discussions and Advice on closing discussions (particularly Advice on closing discussions). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I have started a related discussion in a different article, so for now I'll leave the prematurely closed discussion. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The same involved editor closed the second discussion, and I see no hint of WP:SNOW. Is it appropriate to re-open the discussion by reverting that edit? If so, who should do that? And if not, what should be done instead? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * In what way were they "involved"? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CR" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:CR. The discussion will occur at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_21 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor link change
Would anyone mind if I change the link to Requested moves/Closing instructions to link to Requested moves/Closing instructions to be consistent with the link to Deletion process? ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 15:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ (Special:Diff/1025053644) per silence. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 13:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

red initiated template for short time?
At the time of asking, there is a close request Closure_requests that has a red text for the Initiated template but this shows that it was initiated 23 days ago. It is my understanding that a 23-day-old request would have green text. Are move review requests different or is there a parameter I'm not aware of and can't see that sets the text to red against the template default? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See the documentation for Template:Initiated; red appears for XfDs (which, as that template defines it, include move reviews) that are more than 21 days old, rather than more than 60. The reason for this is that they are, in theory, only supposed to last seven days, whereas requests for comment are supposed to last 30. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 19:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Thanks,, I should have checked the template doc. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Archiving unclosed requests
What is the procedure for marking a request that one wants to archive but has not been formally closed. Should the property  be set in the template? Should the discussion be marked ❌? <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've explained this before, it may be in the archives. Anyway, there are two independent actions here.
 * The yes parameter tells the template not to put the page in, and also to show its text in black instead of colour. Essentially, we use this parameter to mean "no further action is required here".
 * The tells the reader that the request will not be actioned, and it also informs  that the thread may be archived on the next bot run.
 * Other templates, listed in the archivenow parameter of the template at the top of the page, will also trigger archiving if used at any point in a thread. If any of these are used, yes should also be set. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That confirms what I thought, but having already been flamed for relisting an archived thread at ANI because there was still a request open here, I thought I'd better check first before I make another mistake. If you have to repeatedly answer this question, perhaps an administrators' instruction page would be in order. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's in the last paragraph of WP:RFCLOSE but may be missed because it's probably "below the fold"; it's also displayed when you respond to a request but that editnotice probably gets ignored per WP:TLDR. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Bot request for maintenance
Please see my request for bot to handle the maintenance here: Bot requests — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Early-consensus time-frame for closures
Greetings, all. The text currently states: When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure. We need perhaps to make more clear this advice. It's evident we're advised, when a clear consensu emerges, to allow the normal way of closing down the discussion (see also WP:ACD), instead of bringing it here and wait for the typical time-frame for a "request for closure" process to reach a conclusion (which is a "default time" of "30 days"). I'd suggest a wording to that effect, i.e.: "When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by allowing the typical process to exhaust itself instead of "requesting closure" here and then waiting weeks for it."

More importantly, we have in the text this: 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 minimum amount of time required for such an "early closure" is not clearly determined; the default assumption is that the closing can be done at any time. However, even with a clear consensus emerging hours after the discussion has opened, I propose we impose a forma obligation to wait. I'd suggest we insert the phrase: A minimumn amount of 48 hours is required. The reason for the proposal is that, very often, a proposal is tabled but, for whatever reason, only contributors from one side of the argument are made aware of it. The result is a "clear consensus" that's possibly phony. There is no way of completely avoiding a pseudo-clear consensus but I believe a 48-hour minimum waiting-period would go a long way towards minimizing its occurrence. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As correctly addressed by User:Mathglot over at A. C. Santacruz's talk, we have many rules; in my opinion too many. With that amount of policies, guidelines, information pages, essays, explanatory supplements and other stuff there will inevitably be a point where they start contradicting each other. As I said on A. C. Santacruz's talk, WP:CR stipulating "any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" and WP:RFCCLOSE establishing that "any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion" is slightly confusing.
 * Most admin noticeboards have a very brief but concise and elaborate introductory statement; I think WP:ANI is a good example. So my suggestion would be to trim as much of the WP:CR introduction as possible and including something like:
 * "Before posting a request here, please read WP:ACD, and if applicable, WP:CLOSE on how to close general discussions, WP:RFCCLOSE on how to close requests for comment (RfC), WP:CLOSEAFD on how to close articles for deletion discussions (AFD), and WP:XFD on how to close other types of deletion discussions".
 * This way we do not have to concoct yet another set of "local rules" – which may unnecessarily conflict with actual, established rules – but we refer readers directly to the relevant guidelines/info pages for all types of closures handled here at WP:CR (excluding administrative discussions). Colonestarrice (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Let me just state first that I disagree with your take, i.e. that we have "too many rules." The quantity is far from overwhelming; it's just the quality that often suffers, mostly on account of lack of text comparison. But these are personal opinions.
 * Now, to your suggestion: It is essentially a kind of Redirect; a reminder that we should first be checking the extant, relevant policies & guidelines. Which is fine! In my view, your suggestion along with the small change in text I submitted would make everyone's life easier: We get the advice plus a clear description of time frames. It would be counter productive to allow an unclear text to stand in the very place where closures are requested, in the hope that editors would figure out on their own the time frames. Finally, note please, this has nothing to do with "more rules." I simply propose clarification of an existing rule. -The Gnome (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. And I didn't read your proposal as yet another rule, my comment was intended as a general and unrelated statement. So if we conjoin your suggestions with references to established guidelines, I would absolutely go with that. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at VP:Policy
There is currently a discussion at Village_pump_(policy) regarding unclear and contradictory wording in closure guidelines. The thread is Possible_need_to_clarify%2Freword_aspects_of_the_closing_guidelines%2Finformation_pages. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we should abandon/close down the discussion I started here and move it to the pump? In any case, it's obviously best to have it in one place only. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote The discussion is about the topic Topic. - what is "Topic" in this instance? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * oh my bad! I'm so sorry for that. I forgot to remove the optional topic parameter when using the discussion notice template. The topic is as mentioned in the first sentence of the notice, that of unclear and contradictory wording in closure guidelines, in particular closure by those starting an RfC. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Header message
Should we add a message to the header to the effect of "leave one, take one"? Jehochman Talk 14:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jehochman: I'm not entirely opposed, since it would be a harmless suggestion, but I also don't see the need for that. Closure request, from my brief experience, is not a place with much of a backlog, with the exception of the few requests that linger here for very long, which are the ones that can either only be closed by administrators or are too extensive/controversial and most editors would rather avoid them. The casual requestor is going to usually face those, and that might too tall a request for them. Isabelle 🔔 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the idea from the DYK process where it says something like, when you nominate one, please review one to keep the queue moving. The average editor can close even a complex discussion. I've adopted your style of asking first, "Does anybody object to me closing this?"  If there are no objections, well, why not? Jehochman Talk 23:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The DYK people introduced the "quid pro quo" requirement for all nominations (instead of only self noms) when they were being swamped with new nominations at a time when few people were working on other people's nominations (see WT:Did you know/Archive 112). That's not really happening here: as I write this, there are 2 closed requests, 1 under way, and 10 outstanding. That's really not that many to worry about. Of greater concern to me is the number of new RfCs that get raised by people who haven't exhausted the suggestions of WP:RFCBEFORE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Question
Maybe I'm missing something here but the "Requests for closure" header seems entirely unnecessary. The "Place new... discussions above this line using a level 4 heading" headers also seem unnecessary, and confusing; I've never seen this on any other venue and would suggest we replace them with usual hidden text. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those headings are necessary because of a bug in ClueBot III - when archiving, it takes everything from one heading (inclusive) to the next heading of the same level (exclusive), even if there are intervening headings of a higher level. See Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 2. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

DoNotArchiveUntil
We see four instances of:

on the subject page, and wonder if these are affecting the bot's archiving process?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 23:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would guess that they should not adversely affect the bot, because  they were present in the page's code. So why hasn't the bot worked to archive closed items since 05:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)? Seem to be other problems, as well.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 23:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an inquiry entry at User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2022/March.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly worked . As to the presence of several instances of, I have explained this several times - see the archives of this page and of User talk:Redrose64. In short: it's a hack because Cobi won't fix the bot. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * it makes sense that we don't want the bot to archive until we tell it to archive, it just looks weird. Good that it's working again. Who thought to use the 2147483647 prime number?  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not chosen as a prime, but because it is 231 − 1, which is the latest valid UNIX time before the Year 2038 problem occurs. As to who, check the page history around April/May 2017. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fascinating! Appears to have been editor Cobi with and es of "(Attempt to make CB3 not archive grouping headers.)" I do like his choice of end dates. Wonder if Y2K38 will fizzle a bit like Y2K did? Gawd, I'll be 88yo when it hits.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 16:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

backlog at WP:RM
Can we have some administrators (or page movers) handle the backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I've manually listed some here in the past, but we just need someone to go through most of the rest. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Please help
I'm trying to close a RfC (my first) and I'm having trouble. I entered the text as: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79, topic # 7 but I got 4 (!) error messages. Can somebody help? (Note the system replaced my second line of code from the edit page with a proper message.) -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where are you doing this? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the "Requests for closure" section, immediately under the "Administrative" section. Besides the location, I'm not sure if I'm wording it right. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Pete+Best+Beatles&namespace=4&limit=500 your contributions], you have never edited that page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I guess I didn't save the edit because of all the error messages. It's on there now. I also noticed that my title isn't highlighted in blue like all the other posts. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed your request, . The errors seem to have come from the commentary in the page, which you unhid when you accidentally removed part of the code. Feel free to add your signature after the date to show you've made the request. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 03:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * . . There is so much difference that I don't know where to start explaining; but I do know that there is plenty of guidance given both on the page itself and also in a notice at the top when you are editing it. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You show me people completing a closure. I am attempting to initiate a closure. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the edit that I described as "This is what most other people do" is an example of a fresh request for closure. A completion of an earlier request would be something . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Big backlog on this page
As of now, there are 16 closure requests waiting to be done, and the number will likely increase in the future. Could some editor, or a team of editors, help to clear the long backlog? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Validity of closure request
Is Closure_requests a valid request for WP:CR? Someone once told me that people are probably aware that there is a backlog. Something like this could stay there indefinitely. Please ping me when you respond. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jax 0677 I think it was a okay way to attract some more closers there: The backlog has shrunk considerably there. You're right about such a request staying there indefinitely, so maybe in the future such a request should be posted on talk, or should have some goal attached to it, such as "please remove when backlog has shrunk back to X". Femke (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Unresolved request archived?
Greetings, may I inquire why my closure request for an RfC was archived without being resolved? If it was premature to request that, please say so! Although I suspect it was simply a bot error (and/or a formatting error on my side). – LordPickleII ( talk ) 19:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A mix of both; the bot is coded to archive all requests that contain the wikitext . This is trying to catch nd (a redirect to not done), but instead triggered on the ndash in your request. So either don't use that template or use the full name en dash * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  19:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight move
Can someone close Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight? There is a clear consensus to vacate the decision. Alaexis¿question? 18:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Two things. First, you should have posted this at Closure requests, not here; second, it was closed more than a month ago, by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think they mean the MRV, not the RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Thanks! Alaexis¿question? 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Simpler
Would it be possible for this page to add blue buttons to easily post new requests, like at Requests for page protection? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What blue buttons might those be? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Request protection" etc, just above the ToC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. It seems that I . In which case, I decline. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Expired RfCs and close request not automated
Hi, Legobot removed an expired RfC template with this edit but I now see that no corresponding CR was made. This may have been discussed before but I am somewhat surprised that opening a CR is not an automated function? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Most don't need formal closure. Unless consensus is unclear there's no reason to post a closure request, so it's not automated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Closure wording
I think the "closure" wording is confusing people. That is, it's not clear to people that this is a place to request a summary of a finished discussion. They might think it's the place to get a new discussion shut down (e.g., as inappropriate or duplicative). This is a place to request a summary statement, not to request Cloture. I have therefore re-written part of the instructions to use words like "formal closing statement" instead of "closure". If that's not enough, we can later add an explicit statement like "This is not the place to stop people from having a discussion; this is the place to get someone else to state what they think the results of the discussion were." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jc37, please tell what more is being requested on this page, than for someone to "assess a discussion and write a formal closing statement"? I believe that most people posting here are looking for the summary statement.
 * In case it helps, Requests for comment offers the following glossary:

Some terms we use:
 * Ending an RfC
 * Removing the link to the discussion from the central RfC lists.  This is accomplished by removing the tag from the talk page; a bot takes care of the rest.  The bot will also remove the tag, if you wait long enough.


 * The end of a discussion
 * This means people have stopped discussing the question.  When a discussion has naturally ended, you should consider ending the RfC.


 * Closing the discussion
 * Someone lists conclusions (if any) and discourages further discussion.  Some editors make a distinction between "closing" a discussion (discouraging further discussion, usually with the template pair) and "summarizing" a discussion (naming outcomes).  Neither "closing" nor "summarizing" are required.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Awesome job folks
I think this is the least number of open closure requests I've ever seen when visiting this page. Great job, closers. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Tools to make summaries easier
It seems that providing a description of the participation level (e.g., "100 comments" or "50 editors") increases editors' perception that the closer has done a good job. There is a tool for doing this, but you'll have to opt in. Go to Special:Preferences and turn on "Discussion Tools". Every ==Section== on a Talk: page (but not yet, sadly, the Village Pumps[*]) will get a "topic container" that says when the last comment was made in that section, how many comments have been made, and how many unique users/accounts have posted comments.

Some of you may already have this turned on, since it's part of the package that brought us the Reply tool.

[*] Until User:PPelberg (WMF) deploys it everywhere, you can trigger it as a one-off on a Village pump or any other non-talk page by going to the regular page URL (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous), not with a   in the URL) and adding this magic code:    (and then reload the page). For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)?dtenable=1 WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

About a closing of an RfC
Hello. I had an RfC but it seemingly went snowy. But I realized only a couple of editors were uninvolved from a previous RfC on the topic and all the involved ones except, I think, one, had voted in the same way in the previous RfC. I had requested to allow for a couple more editors with a different leaning to provide insights before closing but I was accused of soliciting. The RfC was closed by an involved editor. I appreciate your insights. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Do we need the "Place new discussions above" as headings?
The TOC is quite cluttered, especially for those working with the new skin. Is it possible to omit these headings? Or will the bot break if we do that? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because ClueBot III archives from one level 3 heading (inclusive) to the next level 3 heading (exclusive), even if there is an intervening level 2 heading. It took us well over a year of broken archives to work that out; and since Cobi refuses to fix the bot, we're stuck with a redundant level 3 heading above every level 2 heading. The one at the very bottom of the page is in fact completely unnecessary, but it's there to balance up the page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

anrfc-lister user script has been repaired
Hello all. I ran across Ajbura's anrfc-lister script. It's a great idea, but it wasn't working and Ajbura hasn't edited in a year, so I fixed it up. I think I got all the bugs out if you want to try it out: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/anrfc-lister.js. Don't forget to remove the Ajbura version if you have it installed, to avoid the script double loading. Please report any bugs or feature requests. Happy editing :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Carleas – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae, I used it once and quickly discovered it didn't work, with it putting my RfC listing down the bottom below the misc listings, and discontinued usage. Thanks for the advise that it's been repaired. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Novem Linguae, and thanks heaps for your hard work repairing it. Stuff like this is a real quality of life improvement. TarnishedPathtalk 11:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks @Novem Linguae. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 13:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping I'll try it out! &#123;{u&#124;  Gtoffoletto  &#125;}  talk 15:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Haven't tested it yet, but I'm AGF that it works—I've seen NL do good technical work at least once or twice—and I'm grateful for the fix. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Close peer review
If someone has the time, I would appreciate a peer review of this close. For background, see this discussion and this discussion on my talk page, as well as this discussion at the CESSPIT. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, will you get a clue and stop beating this dead horse? Find something useful to do and stop wasting people's time in your endless search for approbation for what you've been told over and over was a huge boner on your part. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve only skimread the ANI thread and so may be missing context, but this didn’t seem like a poor request to me? It just seems like a neutrally worded request for peer review. Best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 22:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a poor request to me either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well on further consideration, if people want to spend their time trying to impart some clue to voorts, more power to them. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've asked for feedback here because I'd like to an objective view from people who regularly determine consensus and are not involved in the discussion at issue. That's why, from the beginning, I've asked people to take this to AN for a close review, and I was disappointed when Levivich, and then you, unilaterally overturned my close outside of the established process that we have to discuss and potentially overturn bad closes. If the people here think my close was bad, I will take that into account in my future closes and learn from that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And if they don't then you'll write off the condemnation you've been receiving at ANI and your own talk page as ... what, exactly? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 23:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If someone has the time, and wants to add their opinion to that of EEng, Elemimele, Levivich, Horse's Eye Back (who also commented in the ANI thread), Softlavender, and, of course, myself. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You, EEng, and Levivich were all involved, and the latter two didn't even try to talk with me before deciding they have the authority to unilaterally overturn closes. Elemimele thought I was imposing my personal views (I did not, because frankly I think this dispute is absurd and I do not care about the hatnote), the full extent of HEB's feedback was "I think this was a bad close" (paraphrasing), and Softlavender merely suggested this should have been an RfC instead. I don't see how a neutral peer review from experienced closers hurts you or anyone else. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel I offered you a wealth of insight into closes, which you appear to be writing off wholesale on account of my being involved. The ANI thread also has a wealth of insight, if you're willing to parse it and consider the insight from all editors in every comment, and not only from those comments specifically related to your close. If someone comes across this request and decides to wade through all of it and offer you some distilled "closing advice", well, that'd be great. But if it doesn't happen (and even if it does) it would behoove you not to discard all this other feedback you've received. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's the full extent of the feedback that I have received (portions that actually address my close bolded:

So, in sum, the advice I've received has either been from involved editors (which I am not discounting, but which has less weight than a neutral community review, e.g., where this should have gone in the first place: AN for a close review); insults from EEng; an incorrect observation from Softlavender, who didn't address the substance of the close; Elemimele, who assumed I was supervoting; and HEB, who believes that closers are bound to follow editors' interpretations of PAGs, even when those interpretations are entirely incorrect (in my opinion, which is, again, why I would like a neutral review).
 * 1) Your feedback on my talk page, in which you told me that my interpretation of the guidelines was technically solid (thank you) and argued that I misinterpreted the consensus or lack thereof (which is the precise reason I am now asking for neutral feedback and the whole point of a close review, which has not occurred here because Levivich and EEng decided to take things into their own hands).
 * 2) Levivich's feedback on my talk page, in which he incorrectly stated that the discussion was re-opened by socks (when in fact you were the editor who re-opened discussion and requested the close) and suggested that every participant in the discussion was a sock. Only one of the editors involved in that discussion (who didn't make a very compelling argument in the first instance) has now been blocked as a sock, and Levivich knows very well that he could have brought the alleged socking to SPI.
 * 3) Elemimele at AN/I, whose feedback was, in full:
 * 4) Horse Eye's Back (HEB) and EEng at AN/I (IP comment, which was replying to Elemiele, added for context:
 * 5) EEng at ANI again: Well I've unrestored your close. At this point it would be best for you to recognize that at LOT of experienced editors find it was inappropriate, and step back. EEng 01:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC) and Thanks for telling me what ANI is for, editor-with-literally-one-fifteenth-the-experience-I-have! My criticism was completely constructive: I told you to stop closing discussions on issues you don't understand, and someone's just gone to your talk page to reinforce that point. But instead of taking that on board, you're fishing at Talk:Closure requests for a "peer review". You've already got your peer review right here in this thread: you screwed up. Now, everyone screws up sometimes, but not everyone keeps denying it despite clear evidence. EEng 21:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 6) Softlavender, whose only (incorrect) comment was that only RfCs can be closed: The thread is not an RFC and should never have been closed. And it should have never been listed at WP:CR. If someone wants to establish an official consensus, they are free to create an RFC about including the link. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 7) HEB on my talk page: For the record I too believe that your close was incorrect. I would refrain from closing discussions on wiki until other editors are confident that you can do so competently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be open to providing some uninvolved feedback in a couple weeks, but I'd recommend withdrawing until then. Asking for feedback now, while the heat is (hopefully) dying down, feels a little too much like an attempted re-litigation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I understand your concern and I'm not looking to re-litigate the close; I asked for feedback now because the close is still fresh in my mind and I didn't think about whether I should wait to request feedback. I'm frustrated about the outcome in general here and will take a step back from this for now. Do you want a reminder in a couple of weeks or will you remember? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A ping would help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

, thank you for your patience. Some thoughts on your close, in no particular order:
 * 1) Those who said that non-RfCs shouldn't be formally closed are incorrect. I do think it's reasonable for editors participating in an informal discussion to feel blindsided by a formal closure. This can be ameliorated if the closure requester announces the request or the closer announces that closure is pending. In a section that had been open over a year, it's unlikely that participants expected a deadline for refuting the points of those they disagreed with.
 * 2) Your close says that the hatnote "clearly violates" a series of guidelines. There is no clear culture here about whether closers can exercise their judgment in this way. I think it's a requirement for the good functioning of the project, but I see SUPERVOTE concerns pop up whenever similar statements are part of a close. It's easier when there's evidence that multiple editors supported the idea that a policy/guideline was violated, but as far as I can tell, no other editor commented on the guideline concerns raised by IP 81.
 * 3) * This part of your close was weakened by footnote a, in which you bring up a part of the guideline that no on in the discussion had mentioned. If you find a relevant snippet of a PAG that hasn't yet been mentioned, you might be better off participating in the discussion than closing it.
 * 4) I don't think you had any responsibility to proactively investigate sockpuppetry, and there was (AFAIK) no evidence of such at the time of your close.
 * 5) I would probably have endorsed your closure if it were challenged right at the moment of closure, without any of the further revelations about sockpuppetry. I probably would have closed with no consensus, but I see your closure as being within closer's discretion. I can't predict how a challenge would have gone, as many people at AN are sensitive to any signals of supervoting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback. I'll definitely give a heads up to editors before I close informal discussions in the future; that was not something I had thought of. I also see how the phrasing might spark supervote concerns, so I'll be more attentive to that as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thinking this through is likely to help my own closure practices, so I'm glad you asked for review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)