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, 43

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1221#Lawbookwriter adding multiple poor quality articles, reverting drafts & templates

(Initiated 21 days ago on 8 April 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

~~closed~~ by editor TheClocksAlwaysTurn. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Closure undone by editor TheClocksAlwaysTurn. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 15:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Return to potentially POINTy editing

(Initiated 16 days ago on 13 April 2026)
EvanTech10 (talk) 20:40, 25 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

Done - (Initiated 101 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)

Done by special guest closer MSK. -- Beland (talk) 06:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:List of fake news websites#RfC: Criteria for Inclusion in List of fake news websites

(Initiated 47 days ago on 13 March 2026)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to assess consensus and close this RfC. It has been open since 13 March 2026 and discussion has slowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2225Lba2 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:History of Somalis in Minneapolis–Saint Paul#RfC: Feeding Our Future and Operation Metro Surge

(Initiated 42 days ago on 19 March 2026)
Last comment was weeks ago. Could use a close by an experienced editor. Thanks. Some1 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 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:Republican Party (United States)#RFC: Should the article's infobox and body be updated in light of the V-DEM Institute and other political scientists' recent claims about it?

(Initiated 36 days ago on 24 March 2026)
This RfC is over a month old and has died down from its peak. Unsurprisingly, this topic has been very controversial with a wide spread of opinions. A closure would go a long way to preventing further headaches regarding the topic that are somewhat common on the page. Retr0r0cket (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Retr0r0cket: The RFC was begun at 16:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC), btw. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks for the catch. I'll fix that right now Retr0r0cket (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:George_Washington#West_Ford:_Fathered_by_George_Washington_or_Bushrod_Washington?

(Initiated 34 days ago on 26 March 2026)
This will need a close by someone experienced in biography policy. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Mathematics#RfC:_Short_description_on_Mathematics_article

(Initiated 30 days ago on 30 March 2026)
RfC is a month old and hasn't received many comments recently. The topic has proven to be surprisingly controversial, with the debate seeming be between editors who don't believe it is possible to have a short description for mathematics based on ontological concerns, and editors who believe that short descriptions are useful for the article based on WP:SDPURPOSE, as well as standardizing the article with other high-level topics. I started this RfC and have a strong stance, so I can't be an unbiased closer. I don't envy the person who wades into it. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Zionism#RfC: Moving "as few Arabs"

(Initiated 30 days ago on 31 March 2026)
Last !vote was 5 days ago and discussion has slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Angine de Poitrine#RfC: lead genre label

(Initiated 29 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^Δxtalk 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 octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 12:23, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: BLPSPS and spoken

(Initiated 24 days ago on 5 April 2026)
No comments in 6 days. Given that the outcome of this RFC may require changes to WP:PAG I had previously notified the following:

TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC on infobox criteria

(Initiated 16 days ago on 13 April 2026)
Perhaps I may be requesting this much early, but I'm uncertain about whether to let the discussion prolong further, let alone typically 30 days or longer. Someone uninvolved can chime in. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Dead_Internet_theory#RfC_regarding_whether_the_Dead_Internet_theory_should_be_called_a_"conspiracy_theory"_in_Wikivoice

(Initiated 13 days ago on 17 April 2026)
This is the third RfC on this topic in the past six months. I believe this one has run its course. Changes have been made to the article since the RfC was started based on new sources, but the central debate remains. I'm very involved in the page, and have pretty strong opinions on the way this one was conducted, and there are a lot of strong opinions in the discussion, so it needs an outside uninvolved person to close. Posting it here to get it in line of the backlog, if it's too early to close, I imagine it won't be by the time someone gets to this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 14:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#RfC: Should we add sovereign states to Hong Kong in templates?

Done - (Initiated 55 days ago on 6 March 2026)
The discussion is about two months old and has not received any new comments for nearly a month. Since this is already the second RfC regarding a similar editing dispute, it may be best for an experienced and uninvolved editor to close the RfC with a conclusion statement. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 00:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Doubled up, Prince of Erebor. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 07:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Sydney Sweeney #RfC: registered Republican

Done - (Initiated 29 days ago on 31 March 2026)

This RfC is expiring tomorrow - another vote came in today after a long period of silence (probably before the deadline), not sure what to do, discussion has died down long time ago. Still 50-50 but discussion offers some reasonable suggestions. I've re-listed before already and kept this open a couple more weeks as requested. You previously offered to help independently assess and close @Athanelar:? Thanks ∞ HardScience (talk) 08:40, 30 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
t
e
V	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	31	240	271
TfD	0	0	25	25
MfD	0	0	0	0
FfD	2	28	33	63
RfD	0	0	35	35
AfD	0	0	3	3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:Fort Douglas GIs football

(Initiated 146 days ago on 4 December 2025)
GoldRomean (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:Fort Douglas GIs football. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 April 13#File:Nekromantix - Curse of the Coffin.ogg

(Initiated 17 days ago on 13 April 2026)
Needs uninvolved closer please. —George Ho (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Merge proposals

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

Requested moves

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 247 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 39 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:With a Little Help from My Friends#Split the Joe Cocker recording?

(Initiated 31 days ago on 29 March 2026)
Discussion has either died down or received very low participation. George Ho (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Basis_of_the_Zionist_claim_to_Palestine

(Initiated 14 days ago on 15 April 2026)
– There is already an ongoing RFC on the Zionism page, as well as another being workshopped, and possibly another one waiting in line, so this issue can't be discussed in an rfc at the moment. The discussion on the noticeboard was extensive though, and several involved editors agree we need an uninvolved neutral opinion to close the discussion. Slava570 (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't require a formal close. Most of the ORN participants are involved in a corresponding Talk:Zionism discussion. If people feel that they wish to ascertain consensus it should be taken to an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be best if an uninvolved editor makes this call. If that's what they say I'll abide by that. There isn't another active discussion on this issue at the moment. The next RFC in line is about something else. Slava570 (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)