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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 87#RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question

(Initiated 65 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

Done - (Initiated 65 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)

Done I didn't participate in this one and had wondered when it would wrap up, so I took care of it. Feedback welcome on my talk page. Courtesy ping @Athanelar NicheSports (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:2020s Minnesota fraud scandals#RFC - Lead

(Initiated 64 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 61 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 61 days ago on 19 January 2026)
Natural causes. Totally not of #Merger proposals. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 49 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 talk:Non-free content#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows

(Initiated 46 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)

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

(Initiated 45 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:North Africa#Request for Comment - Inclusion of Content Ethnic Groups Section

(Initiated 44 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:Opinion polling for the 2026 Israeli legislative election#c-Braganza-20260206145500-RfC

(Initiated 43 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:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Forbes (RfC)

(Initiated 32 days ago on 18 February 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Zara_Larsson#RfC:_Which_image_to_use_as_main?

(Initiated 27 days ago on 23 February 2026)
119 comments, 39 people in discussion. Seems like all arguments have been made at least once now, and comments have died off. Note that this issue has had some media coverage, see "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:" template at top of talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Melania_(film)#RFC:_Should_mention_of_Brett_Ratner's_rape_and_sexual_assault_allegations_be_mentioned_in_the_WP:LEAD?_(survey)

(Initiated 29 days ago on 21 February 2026)
No comments for 3 weeks, closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 20 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	106	164	270
TfD	1	0	6	7
MfD	0	0	4	4
FfD	2	5	33	40
RfD	0	0	90	90
AfD	0	0	0	0

Small sports category discussions

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 2#Category:Winnipeg Fury

Oldest (Initiated 104 days ago on 7 December 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)

4 December discussions have been closed, 7 December relisted to 2 February. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 3#Category:Typographers and type designers

(Initiated 99 days ago on 12 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to 3 February. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 27#Category:Sufi Muslim communities in Syria

(Initiated 90 days ago on 21 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to 27 February. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_March_19#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg

(Initiated 88 days ago on 24 December 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted; link retargeted. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 00:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_25#Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Afghanistan medical cases chart

(Initiated 55 days ago on 25 January 2026)
Consensus is to delete from mainspace. Userficiation is not opposed by delete voters or by majority of delete voters. --~2026-16635-23 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Merge proposals

Talk:Hewlett-Packard#Reopening merge proposal

(Initiated 195 days ago on 7 September 2025)
Note that the original discussion being reopened took place in 2019 at Talk:Hewlett-Packard/Archive 3#Merge proposal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Bursa#A Merge Proposal

(Initiated 146 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 110 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 97 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 84 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 81 days ago on 30 December 2025)
Open for over two months. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Ukrainian conscription crisis#Merge proposal

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:35, 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 68 days ago on 12 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 01:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Been open for over two months now. 1isall (talk | contribs) 03:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 67 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)

Yeah, closure is definitely needed now. 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Symposium#Requested move 28 January 2026

(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 20:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted by TarnishedPath 2 days ago. 1isall (talk | contribs) 16:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Anura#Requested move 29 January 2026

(Initiated 51 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:Hotel Meliá#Requested move 3 February 2026

(Initiated 47 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)

Relisted (again) by CommunityNotesContributor. 1isall (talk | contribs) 22:36, 14 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 207 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 126 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)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Diacritics - when and where to use them

Done - (Initiated 68 days ago on 12 January 2026)
WP:NHL discussion on whether to amend WP:NCIH to allow diacritics across North American hockey articles. It seems a consensus has emerged in favor of option 3 (to allow them), but given the WP:NHL editor pool is pretty small and we've basically all participated, we'd appreciate an uninvolved closer to formalize it. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@The Kip: We shouldn't be suggesting that there seems to be a consensus for anything. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Done Rosbif73 (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Splitting_proposal

(Initiated 60 days ago on 21 January 2026)
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Self-harm#Split DSH vs. NSSI?

(Initiated 97 days ago on 14 December 2025)
LS8 (ruikasa is 100% real) 11:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Refactored to this section. The discussion is a split proposal, not an RM. 1isall (talk | contribs) 11:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)