Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

Shortcut

This forum is for discussion closers to discuss their evaluation of consensus in preparation for closing specific discussions, such as pending XfD, RM, or RfC closes. Any editor who intends to close a discussion, and has concerns about how consensus in that discussion should be assessed is welcome to initiate a discussion here.

Please note that this is not a place to discuss the merits of the underlying matter. It is solely for discussing whether a consensus can be discerned in a discussion, and how the discussion should be closed on the basis of a finding of consensus, or of an absence of consensus. Editors who are involved in discussions of the merits should generally avoid engaging in extensive discussion of how consensus in those discussions should be interpreted.

This is also not a venue for review of discussions that have already been closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Move review or Wikipedia:Deletion review. This forum is also not for requests that a discussion be closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Closure requests.

Talk:Military-industrial complex#RfC pejorative

I wanted to try closing an RfC, but since this is the first time I would be doing that, I wanted to run it by some other people first to see if I’m understanding the assignment correctly.


My proposed closure of Talk:Military–industrial complex#RfC pejorative:


Proper policy-based, good-faith arguments were made on all sides of this RfC, despite low participation and LLM interventions which were already collapsed and could be ignored in the writing of this summary.

There has been no opposition to option D while there was significant opposition to either B or A, while C had very little support. The use of the term “usually” in A was criticised and supporters of A agreed to use “often” instead.

This leads me to conclude a consensus exists for a modified version of D, which uses a milder qualifier of the frequency of use than “frequently”. It would then be “The phrase Military-Industrial Complex is often used to criticize…”, the support for which is greater than for any other option.

(Personal note: I generally use -ise, but in this summary, the quoted phrase, being a literal fragment meant for use in the article text, which uses American English, obviously needs to use -ize despite the summary including the phrase ‘use of “usually” in A was criticised’ as well.)

Slomo666 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this close (especially the part about dropping "frequently"), but I can't come up with something better either, so perhaps the best course of action is to try it and see what happens. Oftentimes such ContentiousTopics/AmeriPolitcs (which only applies to post-1992 ones, broadly construed)–related topics should be closed by an administrator, but since the discussion wasn't heated at all I'll ignore that rule.
I'd wait for one more editor to chime in before you follow my (potentially dangerous) advice, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I had not even considered this was within the American Politics Ctop. Slomo666 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the discussion, and you might want to pick a different discussion anyway, since it's an WP:AP2 article. But whether you try to summarize this or not, you might want to consider the value of a "consensus against" statement, rather than a "consensus for" statement. Sometimes, ruling things out is as important as ruling them in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Input on merge close

I'm looking to close the proposed merger: Talk:Yeison Jiménez#Merge proposal, which has been on the request closure page for about a month. This is my first time closing something where consensus isn't crystal clear so I wanted to ask for input on my proposed close:

The result of the discussion was merge.

Supporters of the merge cited WP:EVENTCRIT to argue that the event does not independently meet notability guidelines as an aviation accident. They argued that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the reader would be best served by merging the articles and that the notability for this event cannot be inherited from the notability of Jiménez.

Opponents of the merge argued that the death of Jiménez is in itself notable per WP:GNG and that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is guaranteed by the forthcoming accident report. Furthermore, they argued that per PAGEDECIDE readers seeking information on Jiménez's death would be better served by a separate article. The argument that "merging is for non-notable events mentioned in passing" was not considered because it ignores important parts of WP:MERGEREASON. Just because an event, in this case a death, is notable, doesn't mean that it needs its own article. In this case readers are best served by keeping all of the information in one article.

There is general agreement among editors that:

ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Works for me. Iseult Δx talk to me 16:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you both for the feedback! I added some more explanation, hoping to post it tomorrow. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
If it was me, I think I'd also give more detail on why the argument from precedent fails, and why the IP addresses !voting get less weight than the experienced generalist editors. There's a good chance of at least one editor being very surprised about this close so expect some pushback.—S Marshall T/C 20:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox wars

Since 2013, ArbCom has asked the community to create a list of factors that editors could weigh when deciding whether to include or exclude an infobox in a given article. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC on infobox criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

My closure of RfC: Criteria for Inclusion in List of fake news websites

I'm self reporting myself here as I've made my very first close, and would like someone (uninvolved) to check that I've done everything correctly.

I found the RfC listed on WP:CR, as it's not on a topic that I'm particularly familiar with or interested in, but seemed simple enough for me to understand. — Isaac Oscar 12:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

You didn't analyze the arguments. This reads as a supervote. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I did, but the arguments generally seemed to be the same and reasonable. I'll add a section explaining more then? — Isaac Oscar 12:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
@Isaac Oscar, I'm not sure you've captured consensus correct, particularly on question 2. Given you've made 112 edits, I'm not sure you should be closing RFCs. TarnishedPathtalk 12:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Ps, also what voorts stated above. TarnishedPathtalk 12:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Pps, I got your edit count wrong, but it's close enough. TarnishedPathtalk 12:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Yes I did think people would notice my edit count, but I have read a lot of RfCs and closes so I thought I'd give it a try on something simple and uncontroversial, and see if I could actually do it.
As for question 2, yeah I think I worded it wrong, I meant to say systemic problem or multiple offending articles.
But if we assume that a WP:RS would never describe an entire site as fake news based on a single example, changing it just "trust the reliable source" would seem to satisfy everyone, and be inline with the policies nore (i.e. so it's not WP:OR). — Isaac Oscar 12:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
You may have read a lot, but how many have you contributed to? TarnishedPathtalk 12:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
You are misunderstanding how closing an RfC works. A closer's job is to evaluate consensus, not come up with a solution that satisfies everyone. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate you want to contribute to closing discussions, but you really need much more experience. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Right, but the problem with that RfC is that there is "no consensus" as the questions were open ended and so there wasn't a hundred percent agreement on every detail. (I should've chosen a simple yes/no question to start with). — Isaac Oscar 12:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
You should revert your close and let someone else handle this. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. From the specific feedback you and @TarnishedPath gave me, it didn't seem like I couldn't fix the issues.
But if me being an inexperienced editor is just going to taint the whole thing, I won't bother (as a close that no one trusts doesn't seem very useful).
Thanks to both of you though for your prompt feedback! — Isaac Oscar 12:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
All good. TarnishedPathtalk 12:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

My closure of Talk:Opus Dei#RFC on lead wording

I am looking to close Talk:Opus Dei#RFC on lead wording and as this is my first time attempting to close a discussion, I am seeking feedback on my draft closure summary as below.

“There is consensus for Option B in principle but not for its exact wording verbatim.

Supporters of Option B or a modified version of it argued that the lead should summarise the article’s most important points, including any prominent controversies. This would involve providing greater detail than is given in the short explanation in Option A that the organisation “remains controversial”. It was argued that Option A gives readers insufficient information about a substantial aspect of the organisation, especially given that most readers do not move beyond the lead.

Those opposed to Option B generally raised objections to its precise formulation, rather than the mention of controversy in the lead in principle. These included that “highly involved in the Catholic Church” is unclear or tautological; that “controversial with Christians and non-Christians” is imprecise; that particular allegations of controversy should be neutrally attributed rather than presented as facts; and that the proposed selection of controversies may not reflect their relative weight or prominence.

Several contributors who supported Option B also expressly contemplated further refinement rather than endorsing the proposed wording as written. Some contributors who supported Option A were likewise open to an expanded, albeit more general, description of the prominent controversies.

Accordingly, there is consensus that the lead should move beyond Option A’s bare statement and should contain a concise and proportionate description of the most prominent controversies covered in the article body. There is consensus that criticisms of the organisations perceived secrecy and political involvement are sufficiently prominent to be mentioned in the lead. There is rough consensus for a brief mention that The Da Vinci Code brought the organisation substantial public attention, with the suggestion that it be made clear that the organisation’s depiction in the film was fictionalised or criticised as inaccurate. There was no consensus for the listing of sexual abuse among the controversies, with those opposed to its mention arguing that it was not a sufficiently distinctive Opus Dei controversy and that its inclusion would give it disproportionate weight compared to the other controversies for which there was consensus.” Keelan • Talk | Contribs 02:27, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking for feedback primarily on whether you've correctly identified the result, or on whether your explanation is well written? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Largely that I’ve correctly identified the result, but I am open to criticism on the writing as well. Keelan • Talk | Contribs 02:34, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Seems good to me. If there's anything wrong with it, it's probably that it's too long for the little amount of controversy/heatedness/non-clarity in the discussion. You could probably drop paragraph ¶2, keep the first sentence of ¶3, and drop ¶4. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2026 (UTC)