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

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

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, 42

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III.

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. This will set appropriate categories and trigger ClueBot III to archive the request. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through.

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

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Per RfC: adding ban on AI-redrawn "enhanced" images

(Initiated 100 days ago on 4 December 2025)
Technically not an RfC, but deserves a close so the result can be implemented. May require a little bartendering of the wording. Listing here so this doesn't get forgotten. Toadspike [Talk] 08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Needs a discussion about the use of AI to remove watermarks, signatures and other marks of ownership. I suggest that this gets specific attention from the community in order to produce a robust, clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
@S Marshall You are welcome to advertise this more widely. In theory it only serves to implement the result of a previous RfC, but the discussion has sprawled in a way that makes this more complicated. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to be seen to participate in the RfC by advertising it, in case the community feels it makes me involved, which would limit my ability to close RfCs about AI images in the future. I'd prefer just to suggest it here if that's OK.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
...if anything, suggesting topics for discussion makes you far more involved than posting a neutral notification of a discussion on relevant noticeboards or talk pages (though I now see that my suggestion doesn't address your suggestion). Since you have an opinion on this, you could leave the closing to someone else – there will always be another closer. Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
See those hundred-plus day-old closure requests up there? I'm involved. :)—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kabyles hadra#Request for comment (RFC) on the introduction

(Initiated 83 days ago on 21 December 2025)
Stale RFC. Formal closure requested, please. Andre🚐 00:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Military–industrial complex#RfC pejorative

(Initiated 69 days ago on 3 January 2026)
Discussion ended a month ago. Uhoj (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches#Request for comment on anonymous former members

(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 January 2026)
Request for summary close of an RfC. An RfC was held on whether criticism attributed to former members in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article should be included in the article and, if so, at what weight. Requesting an uninvolved summary close to determine the consensus outcome of the RfC. --HonestHarbor (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Note because I forgot to leave this earlier: Removed a few sentences from the original request, including a summary of the RfC, to make it more neutrally worded as to not sway closers. HurricaneZeta^C 20:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Trump's 2020 photo op at St. John's Church

(Initiated 63 days ago on 9 January 2026)

Request for close of Talk page discussion at Donald Trump currently titled as "RfC: Trump's 2020 photo op at St. John's Church ", which appears to have been stale since Jan 26 with no further responding editors.

This close may be offset from an overlapping 'Page split' discussion which also took place on the Talk page discussion at Donald Trump which was titled as "Merge multiple subheadings for ANI listed close request for Bulking down the article". The close for the overlapping discussion indicated an agreement among participating editors that the larger section containing the St. John's Church image should be trimmed. This may affect the closing of the current RfC listed here.

Requesting an experienced editor to do the close of this RfC which appears to have gone stale since Jan 26 when the last responding editor placed a comment. It should be noted that this RfC was listed as overlapping with a separate 'Page split' discussion which was closed (as described above) and which may influence the outcome here for this current RfC about the image for St John's Church currently in use. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Shirley#RfC: Political descriptor

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Can an uninvolved admin please close this RfC? Thanks. Some1 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 87#RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 January 2026)
RFC template has expired, after a month. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC LLMCOMM guideline

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Stagnant for 2 days now, after I think plenty enough discussion to determine a consensus. Athanelar (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Removing minor parties and independents from election infobox

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Discussion appears stale with last comment being over 10 days ago as of writing this request. I assume enough responses are present for a consensus. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:2020s Minnesota fraud scandals#RFC - Lead

(Initiated 56 days ago on 17 January 2026)
Can an uninvolved admin please close this RfC? Please and thank you. Some1 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this request. Thank you! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 54 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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merging merge discussions with AfD

(Initiated 53 days ago on 19 January 2026)
Natural causes. Totally not of #Merger proposals. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Moroccanoil#RfC about the national allegiance of a multinational business

(Initiated 39 days ago on 3 February 2026)

I became aware of this discussion due to a Feedback Request Service notification on my talk page. The discussion relates to the nationality of the company in the first sentence and a paragraph on alleged cultural appropriation in the controversy section. From what I could tell, the consensus was fairly clear with a single editor disagreeing with three other participants. I stated my position as a (then) neutral party agreeing with the majority and attempted to implement what I saw as the general consensus. This has since been undone by the same single editor who accused me of disruption by implementing the talk page consensus, so I am bringing it here for a more formal close. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

More information This noticeboard is for requesting closures of discussions, not for re-litigating the discussion. Requests should remain neutral and not invite such discussion as well. CNC (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC) ...

This noticeboard is for requesting closures of discussions, not for re-litigating the discussion. Requests should remain neutral and not invite such discussion as well. CNC (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I came here to open a request but it has already been done. I’m the allegedly bad guy involved in the discussion. The whole thing has been flawed since the beginning, with two very different issues being mixed together. The request needs to be procedurally closed ASAP and the users invited to start from scratch by bringing substantiated evidence that my additions/edits are misleading or out of place, rather than just claiming things they cannot prove and mixing a question regarding a company’s national affiliation with one about the controversies surrounding it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh also, the request for comment was started by a vandal and none of the users who intervened – except me – even remotely noticed how suspicious that behavior could be. Another great reason to nullify this trial against me. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yet another user chimed in to add unsubstantiated biased accusations. Will someone kindly intervene to stop this circus? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This user has serious WP:CIVIL issues [] and likes to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him of being part of a conspiracy or 'team up' against him. Also seems way too invested in the topic. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The way I reacted to that ridiculous discussion shouldn’t matter since this whole request was started in a twisted, non-neutral way by a disruptive user. That conversation says more about those who aligned with the vandal than it does about me. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98 has made 111 edits to this page, beginning 11 days after it was created in 2024. He has reverted the work of at least three other editors on these two issues. Julian in LA (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

And yet IvanScrooge98 has built the article based on evidence and sources. Julian in LA came to vandalize it and destroy it, sadly with the help of other editors. All I want to say is it’s pretty clear who is trying to contribute and who isn’t. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

No evidence has been provided and the sources given do not reflect a wider public discourse or reporting of the supposed controversies around this company that he wishes to include in the article violating due weight policy. The term 'cultural appropriation' is also not actually used in the sources cited in that part of the article. Ivan has been very quick to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him of 'bad faith' yet ironically on his user page prominently features things such as "This user has visited Palestine", "This user participates in WikiProject Palestine", "This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Souzan Fatayer." (a Palestinian-Italian figure known almost entirely for Palestinian-Israeli conflict related political activism), and "The Peace Barnstar For contributing to Global Sumud Flotilla and submitting the Freedom Flotilla Coalition". Having your opinions and biases is fine but if you are going to so quickly accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being the ones biased and operating on bad faith maybe you should work on topics that don't overlap with your personal politics so much or personal conflicts of interest given your already declared one with Souzan Fatayer.

It should probably also be noted that even though WP:COIEDIT says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" when you have a conflict of interest Ivan has made 88.4% of the total edits and written 99.1% of the text in the Souzan Fatayer article...

https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Souzan_Fatayer Guile's Theme (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

And yet my contributions to all of these articles have been extremely meaningful, while you still haven’t uttered a single word about Julian in LA, the user who opened the witch trial against me that you’re upholding and at the same time the vandal who deliberately changed “Israeli” to “Andromedan” and “Jovian” multiple times out of spite, purely for vandalic purposes. Keep making a fool of yourself. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 36 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)

Talk:Killing of Alex Pretti#RfC on mentioning Pretti's previous confrontation with ICE in "Background " section

(Initiated 39 days ago on 3 February 2026)
Discussion has died down, with one new !vote and no additions to #Discussion in the last week Placeholderer (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 February 2026)
I know I'm requesting this probably very early, but participation at this minute has been very low lately, i.e. discussion has died down tremendous. I don't expect huge increase of participations by then. --George Ho (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't mind two or more uninvolved closers for collaborative closure, especially if the closure would be too hard for a single person to make an effective determination and evaluation. Nonetheless, hopefully, one or two is an enough amount. --George Ho (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 36 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)

Talk:Sanctioned Suicide#RfC on the inclusion of an external link to the website

(Initiated 41 days ago on 1 February 2026)
The date above is from the second time the RfC template was added, the first time was in May 2025. In any case, new comments have stopped coming and this RfC is in need of closure. Warudo (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Points Guy (TPG)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 4 February 2026)
Discussion has died down and RFC tag removed, ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Syria#Kurdish on the Infobox (RfC)

(Initiated 55 days ago on 18 January 2026)
The RFC tag has been removed, and the discussion is already inconclusive and ready to be closed. HurricaneEdgar 11:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Deletion discussions

More information V, Dec ...

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	126	107	233
TfD	1	0	18	19
MfD	0	0	3	3
FfD	3	5	11	19
RfD	0	22	54	76
AfD	0	0	16	16

Small sports category discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4 - most discussions there
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_7#Category:Winnipeg Fury

Oldest (Initiated 108 days ago on 25 November 2025)
. These are all essentially the same discussion, with the same fundamental dispute, and I just don't want to deal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_12#Category:Typographers_and_type_designers

(Initiated 92 days ago on 12 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 2#Category:Muslim communities of Russia

(Initiated 83 days ago on 20 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 30#Category:Sufi Muslim communities in Syria

(Initiated 82 days ago on 21 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_14#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg

(Initiated 80 days ago on 24 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_3#Category:Mass_shootings_by_transgender_individuals

(Initiated 30 days ago on 12 February 2026)
Has been opened for two weeks now. Could use a close. Some1 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. There is an overwhelming consensus for deletion and has been since the first few days. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted on March 3. Chess enjoyer (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Merge proposals

Talk:Bursa#A Merge Proposal

(Initiated 138 days ago on 27 October 2025)
Open for a few months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Sylacauga (meteorite)#Proposed merge of Ann Elizabeth Fowler Hodges into Sylacauga (meteorite)

(Initiated 103 days ago on 1 December 2025)
Open for over three months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Terrorism in Australia#Merge proposal

(Initiated 90 days ago on 14 December 2025)
Open for about three months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Houthi-controlled Yemen#Merge

(Initiated 76 days ago on 27 December 2025)
Open for over two months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Nashville Star#Proposed merge of Melissa Lawson into Nashville Star

(Initiated 73 days ago on 30 December 2025)
Open for over two months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of the Arab Revolt#Merge proposal: Flag of the Arab Revolt and Flag of the Arab Federation

(Initiated 72 days ago on 1 January 2026)
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Ukrainian conscription crisis#Merge proposal

(Initiated 58 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Tropical Storm Alma#Merge Alma and Arthur?

(Initiated 47 days ago on 25 January 2026)
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Requested moves

Talk:Tristan and Iseult#Requested move 12 January 2026

(Initiated 60 days ago on 12 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 01:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Natalie and Nadiya Anderson#Requested move 13 January 2026

(Initiated 59 days ago on 13 January 2026)
Kinda hesitant to re-request the closure. Indeed, the discussion has gotten more complex than I hoped for. Previously requested the closure weeks back, but then I had to withdraw due to the direction that the discussion was heading to. I would prefer a two- or three-person closure, honestly. I don't mind a single-person closure alternatively, but I think a two- or multi-person would help those less experienced and then encourage collaboration between the two or among them three. Others may disagree, but seeking two or more is easier IMO than seeking just one capable. The question of whether collaborative closure is quicker than a singular one remains. Indeed, one or more uninvolved, preferably, would have to carefully evaluate the arguments and rebuttals and all and then determine the results... but then might face backlash if the closure goes wrong. —George Ho (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind a multi-person closure, but I can't help think more than three might be excessive. Nevertheless, the more the merrier. —George Ho (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich#Requested move 18 January 2026

(Initiated 55 days ago on 18 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 13:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Requested move 21 January 2026

(Initiated 52 days ago on 21 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Mission control (disambiguation)#Requested move 21 January 2026

(Initiated 51 days ago on 21 January 2026)
TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Job (disambiguation)#Requested move 24 January 2026

(Initiated 49 days ago on 24 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 02:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted by Iseult. HurricaneZeta^C 13:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This really needs closure now. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Symposium#Requested move 28 January 2026

(Initiated 45 days ago on 28 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Anura#Requested move 29 January 2026

(Initiated 43 days ago on 29 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 21:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Waiting on closure... 1isall (talk | contribs) 19:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Northumberland Park Metro station#Requested move 30 January 2026

Done - (Initiated 43 days ago on 30 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 20:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Closed, 1isall. @Pretzel Quetzal and Amakuru: I've made a real hash of it technically but think I've fixed/implemented the consensus with Move+. Do you mind checking my work? Iseult^Δxtalk to me 06:59, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Good morning @1isall: and thanks for the close. I'm glad to see the London station was moved. However, can I ask why the move Northumberland Park Metro station → Northumberland Park station (Tyne and Wear) was not carried out? AFAIK everyone in the discussion supported that move, and that wasn't the main aspect thay dominated the discussions, it's just a simple correction – the station is no longer Metro only. Please could you revisit that? I believe there was consensus to move both the London station, as you have correctly done, and also that one. Other than that I think you've done things correctly, other than that you missed updating the disambiguation page following the move – see where I've just done that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

The moves you've made so far are correct, but as Amakuru said, you've missed the move for the Metro article. I think that's on me though, I wasn't very clear in my proposal that I supported that move as it had a clear consensus of support earlier in the discussion. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've tried moving it myself, hopefully I've done that correctly. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok @Iseultand @Amakuru, I think I've performed all the relevant moves correctly that were missed, do let me know if I've done anything wrongly. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Hotel Meliá#Requested move 3 February 2026

(Initiated 39 days ago on 3 February 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 16:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted by Iseult. 1isall (talk | contribs) 17:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:List of elected and appointed female state leaders#Requested move 9 February 2026

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 February 2026)
Discussion has been open since 9 February 2026 with the last relisting being on 27 February 2026 so two weeks ago as of writing this request. Activity is not very high but there have been two recent messages. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:23, 13 March 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 200 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)

Talk:Forspoken#Total_available_sales_data_of_Japan_release

(Initiated 119 days ago on 15 November 2025)
- The question is whether this version achieved consensus in the discussion or not. The two changes (adding most recent sales data and adjustment of unclear/WP:OR wording) have been disputed for some time. The latter is also a follow-up adjustment to the recently closed RfC, in case that is relevant to the closer. A WP:30 editor concluded that consensus was reached, but that decision is not accepted, which is why a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is needed. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:American_Eagle_Outfitters#Proposal_to_split_out_Sydney_Sweeney_Has_Great_Jeans

(Initiated 118 days ago on 15 November 2025)
Has been opened for a while now with little participation. Could use a close. Some1 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_2009#Split_by_month

Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	126	107	233
TfD	1	0	18	19
MfD	0	0	3	3
FfD	3	5	11	19
RfD	0	22	54	76
AfD	0	0	16	16

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	126	107	233
TfD	1	0	18	19
MfD	0	0	3	3
FfD	3	5	11	19
RfD	0	22	54	76
AfD	0	0	16	16