Wikipedia:Closure requests

WP:CRWP:CR

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 .

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).

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Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.

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.

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:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 518#RfC: Omniglot

(Initiated 92 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a hard (but unheated) discussion to close. Props to whoever tackles it. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 518#Omniglot after 5 days of inactivity. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: update Democracy Now! from WP:MREL to WP:GENREL?

Done - (Initiated 75 days ago on 15 May 2026)
Discussion has slowed and is ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone close this? ty Astropulse (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved editor can close a discussion, there are instructions at the top of this page. Producing good closes isn't an easy thing to do though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm sorry to Astropulse for the delay. I know it's frustrating waiting for a close. We have limited numbers of people who're uninvolved, sufficiently experienced, and willing to deal with US political content.—S Marshall T/C 19:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2026 Northern Ireland riots#Request for comment

(Initiated 48 days ago on 10 June 2026)
No edits since 10 July, but edits being reverted on basis of open RFC. cagliost (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths

(Initiated 47 days ago on 12 June 2026)
R. G. Checkers^talk 07:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#RfC:_Should_"far-right"_be_added_to_the_political_position_of_the_RSS?

(Initiated 44 days ago on 15 June 2026)

More than 1 month passed. Orientls (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request for Comment: Reliability of CBS News under Bari Weiss

(Initiated 36 days ago on 23 June 2026)
One or more uninvolved closers needed please. —George Ho (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Village pump (policy)/RfC on the new Image Carousel feature

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 June 2026)
No !votes for nearly a week, ripe for closing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Opus Dei#RFC on lead wording

(Initiated 30 days ago on 29 June 2026)
Since it involves a controversial subject, a formal closure by an uninvolved editor will help avoid disputes in the future, even if the discussion was pretty straight-forward. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 11:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. the discussion section contains arguments and workshops an option not originally proposed. In solidarity, Iseult^Δxtalk to me 07:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Request for comment on adding this week's article for improvement to the main page

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 July 2026)

Discussion seems to be losing activity; no comments in several days. RanDom 404 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Flag of Egypt#RfC: Color of the emblem on the flag

(Initiated 21 days ago on 8 July 2026)
This discussion has been going on for a few weeks now. Most people chose the darker version due to the official sources using it. But one user wanted to use the lighter variant due to it being printed on the flag itself. Dmdjdu 13:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

XfD discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	0	137	137
TfD	1	0	2	16	19
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	22	28	15	65
RfD	0	0	0	62	62
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 13#Medal templates 2

(Initiated 106 days ago on 13 April 2026)
Most of the usual TfD closers are involved and the discussion is getting quite old. Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 June 6#File:The Heart Of The Matter single.jpg

(Initiated 53 days ago on 6 June 2026)
Closure long overdue, IMO. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose

(Initiated 41 days ago on 18 June 2026)
Requesting admin closure on this TfD. I feel the discussion may have run its course, and as this comment in particular points out, due to the nature and widespread (across film articles) use of these templates, the TfD may be attracting a disproportionate number of "Keep" !votes from editors who are comfortable with the template and consequently wish to retain it without a full understanding of or consideration for why other editors find their use problematic...or, put more bluntly, editors who are less familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be !voting "WP:ILIKEIT the way it is" without familiarizing themselves with the arguments in favor of deleting or at least auto-substituting the templates. Indeed, many of the !votes don't even address the possibility of auto-substitution that was raised in the opening remarks. Thank you for your review! DonIago (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DonIago about closing this. I don't have a strong opinion on this (I came to closure request this page mostly because I saw the RfD link while browsing a film page, despite it being a month since this started) but just want this to be closed, whichever way the decision goes. I think it's not quite as clear there's a consensus for Delete, since there have been some arguments for Keeping and Deleting that have been supported by multiple voters (for keeping, Sdkb argued in detail that it's easier to maintain consistency, especially when RT/Metacritic change; for deleting, Οἶδα argued that it's used to override custom text and makes it harder to edit individual articles). I'm honestly OK with both outcomes, but just want to close this since it doesn't feel like there's been any big change in the discussion since the last time I saw it and don't think it's worth keeping open. Arcinati (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 July 8#Template:Infobox heat event

(Initiated 21 days ago on 8 July 2026)
Has been open for nearly 3 weeks now and discussion slowed considerably after the 17th, aside from one or two comments. Think closure is warranted now. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs 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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 41#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"

(Initiated 129 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)[reply]

There was a resurgence of discussion in May 2026. While it has just been auto-moved to the archive, a formal closure would be useful in updating TheGamer's entry in the project's list of sources. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Split how-to

(Initiated 109 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine

(Initiated 105 days ago on 15 April 2026)
– relisting this due to possible confusion before as to whether a similar RfC was open. Rfc is now definitely closed. We want to know if sources support a statement... Slava570 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is closed, but the discussion is continuing and new sources are being presented. The discussion has moved to Talk:Zionism and the latest comments in that discussion are from a few minutes ago, including users (eg myself) presenting novel sources[1].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC turned into a regular discussion that seems to have ended. Is it possible to close both of these together? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Slava570@Vice regent, I can’t close this, as mentioned way back in April. But, for the benefit of other CR regulars, is a formal close still necessary? It’s been two and a half months since the relist with no interest in sight. In solidarity, Iseult^Δxtalk to me 18:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this would probably be a massive pain in the butt for whoever closes it, but if at all possible, I think it would be hugely beneficial to have a formal close. It is very difficult to make any changes on the Zionism page. Even minor changes seem to take an inordinate amount of debate and discussion, so it seems to me it would be a waste of a rare chance to make some potential changes to the article. Would it be okay to keep it listed here for a little while longer? Eventually if no one wants to slog through the discussion, we will have to just let it go... Slava570 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Massive is understating it, haha. It would require reading a very long discussion involving dozens of sources, some in foreign languages; all this itself in what’s probably the most contentious topic on the project and currently in real life. And we can’t even devolve to !vote-count very effectively as it’s about what the sources as a whole say.

You are well within your rights to have this to be kept here indefinitely, and I sympathize immensely with the difficulty of making changes to the article. I just wonder what the utility of keeping this here is when the likelihood of someone seeing this, being capable of closure, and being willing to close is infinitesimal.

I’m willing to help however I can where it comes to evaluating consensus. I consider myself conflicted from this as I had previously declined to close older discussions relating to this, which led to our adventure at AE with M.Bitton. This discussion is not nearly as old as that one was then, though.

I guess should you and the other CT/A-I regulars consider me an acceptable closer, I’ll see what I can do, but no guarantees on the timeline (see my user talk: I have work and grad school). Keep in mind though that anyone else can push to overturn my hypothetical close, as conflicts are defined broadly. In solidarity, Iseult^Δxtalk to me 20:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections personally, but I think you have a better idea of what the right move is. Sorry I can't be of more help beyond that... Slava570 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Wrapping up WP:FRINGE/N

(Initiated 70 days ago on 20 May 2026)
– 339 comments, 59 people in discussion, new comments have mostly died off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has died down and now it is on a standalone page. Only one new comment since the page was split. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this needs a close, it was just a poll not a RFC[2]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to the correct section (it was in the RFC section), and then found it already had a request so I appended it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely be closed, it was a large discussion. FaviFake (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Buy should such a decision be made based on a straw poll rather than a formal RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't, but this was clearly not a straw poll and was structured like a RfC, even if it wasn't one. FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See the link in my first comment to the editor who started the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. My comment doesn't contradict it. FaviFake (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was structured like a RFC doesn't matter, the purpose of a RFC is to draw attention from editors unrelated to the discussion. A straw poll doesn't really do that, and it doesn't appear to have been the intended purpose of the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then what should be done with the original proposal? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be closed. It attracted 345 comments, more than enough to form a consensus. FaviFake (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Mentorship Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Splits Moves Protection Batch Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames Report violations Requests for comment Request rename Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.