Wikipedia:Closure requests: Difference between revisions

 

Line 111: Line 111:

=== [[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians’ notice board#RFC: Dropping state/territory from place names by default]] ===

=== [[Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians’ notice board#RFC: Dropping state/territory from place names by default]] ===

{{initiated|19:02, 14 September 2025}} <!– Template:Unsigned –><small class=”autosigned”>—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beland|contribs]]) 08:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)</small>

{{initiated|19:02, 14 September 2025}} <!– Template:Unsigned –><small class=”autosigned”>—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Beland|contribs]]) 08:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)</small>

=== [[Talk:Diane_Keaton#Request_for_Comment:_Death_and_tributes_confusion]] ===

{{initiated|19:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)}} A pretty clear consensus was formed before this RFC opened and is forming again. This could be closed to save valuable editor time. Thanks! [[User:Nemov|Nemov]] ([[User talk:Nemov|talk]]) 14:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===

=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===

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, 40 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be auto-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 the consensus is obvious.

In discussions where consensus is entirely clear to everyone involved, there is no need for a formal close: just go ahead and implement the decision! Discussions should only be posted here when an uninvolved closer is actually needed to resolve the matter.

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. Don’t worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

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 the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

(Initiated 139 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I’m sorry for whoever has to do this, but it’s better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If I was going to close this by myself, my one-paragraph version would say:

The en.wiki community knows that Wikipedia’s licencing terms permit third parties to develop AI tools based on Wikipedia. Third parties can and will develop tools that, for example, summarize Wikipedia articles, and the community has no choice but to accept this. But the community is wary both of AI’s tendency to hallucinate and its tendency to reuse without attribution. Some community members are also concerned about AI’s climate change implications. To the extent that the community can assert control over any AI apps that run on en.wiki content, we assert that control. We ask for the chance to test and challenge all AI tools before they’re deployed, and to the extent that this is feasible, many members of the community would prefer to be consulted about important AI tools while they’re still in development. We ask that where a novel tool is enabled, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, until fully tested and approved by us and other stakeholders. We insist that where a new AI-based tool is deployed, some way of opting out must exist.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already got one close review open against me, so I think I won’t be quite that bold. But if other experienced closers concur with me, then I might co-sign a close.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we’re sharing ideas, I guess, I gave it a good read and here’s my try (but again, I’m not an experienced closer nor admin so take with a grain of salt).

At present, AI is integrated into the English Wikipedia in the context of antivandalism and content translation, with varying degrees of success. While some community members support cautious experimentation with certain AI features by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), we ask that the WMF keep the community updated to the extent that they are able to. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia community rejects any attempts by the WMF to deploy new uses of AI technology on the English Wikipedia without community consensus and approval.

GoldRomean (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 September 2025) Ready to be closed by someone familary with BLP. – Nemov (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 September 2025) If this is closed as unsuccessful, you can ignore the subsection. If it is closed as successful, please make a note of what actions also have to be done (e.g. un-substitution, NOINDEX) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – _c) 17:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 10 September 2025)
Slowing down… also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC tag has now been removed, and there’s only been one new comment in the last week and a half. The discussion potentially overlaps with ARBPIA and AP2, so an experienced closer would be welcomed. — LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 14 September 2025) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 1 day ago on 13 October 2025) A pretty clear consensus was formed before this RFC opened and is forming again. This could be closed to save valuable editor time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 94 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 79 days ago on 27 July 2025) Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 73 days ago on 3 August 2025) RfD initiated 65+ days ago, needs closing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 54 days ago on 21 August 2025) Close or final re-list? There has been no substantive activity since September 15. The second relisting on September 23 garnered no new responses. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 26 August 2025) – Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a “See also” section. — Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 39 days ago on 6 September 2025) — This feels like it should receive a formal closure, it stayed on the VP for over a month, 12 editors partecipated and the only opposer didn’t have an issue with the mockups. —FaviFake (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]