Wikipedia:Closure requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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).

Shortcuts

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

More information Technical instructions for closers ...
Close

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.

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lawbookwriter adding multiple poor quality articles, reverting drafts & templates

(Initiated 8 days ago on 8 April 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements

(Initiated 87 days ago on 19 January 2026)
RFC is about to expire and has largely died down, with the newest comment made about a week ago. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 04:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Lion and Sun#Infobox image selection and caption clarification 2

(Initiated 71 days ago on 4 February 2026)
Majority of the participants believe the historical design has greater encyclopedic prominence. Shfarshid (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Shfarshid, can you explain why you have tagged certain editors in the RfC opening statement and why Hoomanzahedi has written I would like to thank Shfarshid for inviting me to the discussion? Iseult Δx talk to me 03:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
I tagged them as they participated in the writing of the article “Lion and Sun”. Regarding Hoomanzahedi, he is also one of the editors who participated in the article just before I tagged him. I reached to the conclusion that these users are interested in this topic and asked them to express their opinions. I do not know why Hoomanzahedi thanked me. You can ask him directly. Shfarshid (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Shfarshid, Hoomanzahedi has never edited Lion and Sun. They have edited Lion and Sun flag. How did you determine who to tag, as you excluded editors like ActivelyDisinterested, who I see prominently in the page history? Iseult Δx talk to me 15:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
The article “Lion and Sun Flag” is closely related to the article “Lion and Sun,” and a user who has shown interest in the former is likely to participate in the discussion. If you look at their comments on the talk page of the “Lion and Sun” article, you will see that they have not expressed a view in favor of or against either side. Therefore, inviting them to the discussion cannot be interpreted as being based on prior knowledge of their views or as an attempt to influence the direction of the discussion. There are many users. I selected a few who had recently contributed or had more substantial participation, more or less at random, and I may have missed some. In general, I have not previously engaged in discussions with these individuals and was not aware of their viewpoints. I have presented my argument on the talk page. I also added the section “Standardization of the Lion and Sun” to the article in order to include some sources and images that may help clarify the discussion. I also welcome broader participation from others.‍‍‍ Shfarshid (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:North Africa#Request for Comment - Inclusion of Content Ethnic Groups Section

(Initiated 70 days ago on 5 February 2026)
Strong support for the proposition with a minority opposition. There has been no further voting/views expressed since the 12th February. Would appreciate an administrator closing the RfC decisively now as it passed the natural 30 day limit and no further views seem to be incoming.WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Prefer to leave this unclosed pending WP:ARBMAG. Iseult Δx talk to me 08:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@Iseult Hi Isuelt, I think the WP:ARBMAG is pretty near complete in terms of temporary injunction and the overwhelming evidence presented by a multiples of users. I would like to progress on closing this RfC as it has been open for 2 months now, without any further votes/input from other users since early February. WikiUser4020 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
WikiUser4020, I’m not going to speak for the arbitration committee, especially when there is a whole Workshop and PD phase to come.
I do expect sanctions for certain participants if the evidence is borne out. If so, closing this will be a lot easier. In the meantime, closing this, especially if one is to take the step of setting aside !votes of temporarily TBANed editors, is likely to have firmer ground when waiting three weeks or so. This discussion has remained open for two months. Another won’t hurt, and there’s no WP:DEADLINE. You’ll see plenty of older unclosed discussions on this page.
If you disagree, if you are uninvolved, you are welcome to close it yourself. Otherwise, I intend to close this within 12 hours of a stable majority on ARBMAG. Iseult Δx talk to me 16:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@Iseult On second thought, that seems prudent. I just wanted to flag the initial action as a potential option. In light of your second response, I'm fine with you closing the RfC above once the ARBMAG has a clear majority. I would only request you do the same action for the second RfC I have opened below (Lead Paragraph: Minor Inclusion) and notified me once you have made that decision. WikiUser4020 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
WikiUser4020, upon skimming the discussion listed below, I don’t think that a hold is necessary to determine consensus, unlike our our current discussion. This mirrors the RfC mentioned in Evidence as unclosed which I then listed here for closure. I’ll get to that after I do my taxes tonight. Iseult Δx talk to me 18:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
@Iseult Alright, good we can get at least one of the RfCs below in the North Africa section is resolved. WikiUser4020 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Opinion polling for the 2026 Israeli legislative election#c-Braganza-20260206145500-RfC

(Initiated 69 days ago on 6 February 2026)
this discussion essentially concerns how a table displaying polling data should be laid out, particularly how parties should be grouped, if at all. Template has not yet expired, but discussion seems to have died down. I personally think it has gone on long enough, and it would be useful if an outsider could help us move forward. Slomo666 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RFC: Include LLM usage as a reason to block

(Initiated 25 days ago on 22 March 2026)
Very new and discussion is still somewhat ongoing, but I think this is in WP:SNOW close territory. I count 57 !votes expressing some kind of support against 11 expressing some kind of opposition or procedural issue with the RfC. Athanelar (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Dhurandhar: The_Revenge#RfC on film description in the lead sentence

(Initiated 24 days ago on 23 March 2026)
Discussion has slowed with last major comment entered in the discussion section 5 days ago. Leaving this opened further is counterproductive. – robertsky (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Angine de Poitrine#RfC: lead genre label

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 March 2026)
the discussion has run its course, and the core editors have agreed to defer to the data from the article's existing reliable sources. requesting a neutral third party to judge the consensus and close. Kinnimeyu (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Kinnimeyu, I've refactored your addition and placed it in chronological order. Please take note of my changes for future reference. Iseult Δx talk to me 04:09, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
Uh, the discussion is certainly not over. Multiple editors (myself included) have raised new arguments that you have not engaged with. The assertion that I have “agreed to defer” to your argument is incorrect. Three days and no consensus for any option is certainly not an appropriate to request closure for. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 12:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Sydney Sweeney#c-Some1-20260325-RfC

(Initiated 16 days ago on 31 March 2026)
This discussion about adding Sydney Sweeney's Republican voter registration has gone stale with no new responses since April 2nd. Small consensus seems to be to mention it in passing in the main body of the article but given the high-profile nature of the biography would benefit from outside editor(s). HardScience (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

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


Deletion discussions

More information V, Jan ...
XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 39 64 103
TfD 0 0 0 19 19
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 3 29 19 51
RfD 0 0 0 12 12
AfD 0 0 0 0 0
Close

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 2#Fort Douglas GIs football

(Initiated 133 days ago on 4 December 2025)
GoldRomean (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#Category:French military personnel of the Thirty Years' War

(Initiated 80 days ago on 26 January 2026)
GoldRomean (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Was relisted on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:French military personnel of the Thirty Years' War; giving a few more days. -- Beland (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#Category:People of the Cretan War from the Republic of Venice

(Initiated 80 days ago on 26 January 2026)
GoldRomean (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 8#Category:Generals of the Russian Empire

(Initiated 76 days ago on 30 January 2026)
GoldRomean (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 5#Boys Voices

(Initiated 48 days ago on 27 February 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 4#サンズ

(Initiated 46 days ago on 28 February 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:30, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 5#Iran-Israel-United States war

(Initiated 46 days ago on 1 March 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 5#Alleged assassination of Ali Khamenei

(Initiated 45 days ago on 2 March 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 4#Merge templates

(Initiated 12 days ago on 4 April 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Merge proposals

See also: Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading

Requested moves

Talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon#Requested move 7 March 2026

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 March 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk 14:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Relisted by BD2412. TarnishedPathtalk 13:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Countryballs#Requested move 8 March 2026

(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 March 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 12:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Isidor and Ida Straus#Requested move 9 March 2026

(Initiated 37 days ago on 9 March 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk 13:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Relisted by Iseult. 1isall (talk | contribs) 20:40, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Lord Mountbatten#Requested move 10 March 2026

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 March 2026)
Has been opened for over a month and gone through 2 relists. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 07:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Mais qui ?#Requested move 11 March 2026

Done - (Initiated 36 days ago on 11 March 2026)
Lots of text but only three participants, including the nominator. "Final relist for additional participation" on April 7 did not result in new participants. Last contribution was 7 days ago, on April 9. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Closed, Myceteae. Iseult Δx talk to me 19:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Government attacks on journalists during the Trump presidencies#Requested move 17 March 2026

(Initiated 30 days ago on 17 March 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk 13:13, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

 Relisted by Maltazarian. TarnishedPathtalk 13:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Metal Gear: Ghost Babel#Requested move 12 February 2026

Done - (Initiated 62 days ago on 12 February 2026)
Non-admin closed twice before, although reopened today. Second close was done by myself, but I've become far too involved in subsequent discussions for anyone (including myself) to be comfortable with this. I also participated in the original discussion. --LiquidSevens (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Closed by Agent VII. 1isall (talk | contribs) 20:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
@Redrose64 My bad. I am aware that you should set |done=yes, I just forgot to do so for this request. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Other types of closing requests


Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois

(Initiated 233 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)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I have unarchived this to note that I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RFC: Piped links in "See also" sections. Perhaps that will resolve the issue more clearly. -- Beland (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Requested close of that RFC in the above section. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
For better or worse, the broader RFC closed as "no consensus", so this now needs a case-by-case close. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"

(Initiated 25 days ago on 22 March 2026)
Majority of the lengthy discussion occurred between 22-30 March with 2 additional comments in April (it has been a few days since the last comment). Given the range of views, a formal close would be helpful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Zionism

Could someone please ascertain whether there's consensus in these discussions: 1 2. See Bobfrombrockley's involved summary here. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You've included a discussion here that is well stale. That should not be assessed for any consensus, only the current discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 22:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI