Wikipedia:Closure requests
 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
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Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.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 |
|---|
|
You can append |
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
[edit]- Wikipedia:Requested moves § Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion § Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers § Articles currently being merged
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits § Articles currently being split
Administrative discussions
[edit]Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 47 days ago on 24 June 2026)
No !votes for nearly a week, ripe for closing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Done - (Initiated 40 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)
Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Visual Editor for new editors#RfC on the default editor for new Desktop editors
[edit](Initiated 35 days ago on 6 July 2026)
Legobot's removed the tag Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Talk:World Athletics Championships#RfC on mass consolidation of individual national performance articles
[edit](Initiated 35 days ago on 7 July 2026)
More than 20 days have passed since last comment.
CSGinger14 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]
XfD discussions
[edit]| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 114 | 11 | 125 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 8 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| FfD | 5 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 17 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 100 | 22 | 122 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Done - (Initiated 66 days ago on 6 June 2026)
Closure long overdue, IMO. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 10:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done by Explicit. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 22 July 2026)
It has been a few weeks now, and we have tried relisting a couple times, but there appears to be clear consensus to redirect the article. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 22 days ago on 20 July 2026)
The discussion remains active but there have been no new bolded !votes since the first relist on August 5. It is now mostly already involved editors going back and forth rehashing their interpretations of the naming convention. The relist was certainly reasonable but I don't see that it has helped to attract new participation or build consensus. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 3 days ago on 7 August 2026)
This discussion has not been open for seven days yet but may require closure under the snowball clause per WP:SNOW as opposition to the proposed move is unanimous and has built up quickly. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment: RMs involving WP:NOYEAR are frequently contentious and the guideline itself is a frequent topic of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events), including an ongoing RFC on the wording which has both rehashed arguments from the 'no consensus' RFC in October and generated proposals for a separate RFC to address wording in another part of the NOYEAR guidance. Anyone seeking to close this should be familiar with the contours of these debates, especially if one is going to invoke the snowball clause for a very early close. I would prefer to leave this open longer, and ideally for the full seven days, even though editors who usually disagree on the NOYEAR threshold are in unanimous agreement so far. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 170 days ago on 21 February 2026)
No discussion in months, seems to have died out.Roads192 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 41#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"
[edit](Initiated 142 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)
- 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)
(Initiated 124 days ago on 8 April 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 122 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 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)
- 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.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- @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 Δx talk to me 18:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Δx talk to me 20:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- I've just looked at this in depth, and it's utterly ghastly. I'm not willing to close this as a solo effort but I'd be willing to join a panel. Do we have any stalwart closers with iron resolve and asbestos talk pages who fancy collaborating on a closing statement that'd survive the inevitable close review?—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- You should probably ask at WP:DFD. FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion but I'll be the judge of what I should do.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- That was indeed just an opinion :) FaviFake (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion but I'll be the judge of what I should do.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I'll give the discussion a skim and see whether it's a piranha pit worth swimming in before I give an answer one way or another. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think based on the bans mentioned below and the heat of the discussion from the onset, regardless of whichever way the closure goes this will undoubtedly be dragged through AN for closure review and so on and so forth. I'm not entirely confident I should sign up for the panel with the expectation that, next week and onwards, I will have a series of off-wiki life events that will require a majority of my time (starting a Master's). Therefore, I will decline swimming in this pit at this time, which is not to say that I'm against joining similar panels later when the timing's more maneuverable. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think you're right. Thank you for considering it.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think based on the bans mentioned below and the heat of the discussion from the onset, regardless of whichever way the closure goes this will undoubtedly be dragged through AN for closure review and so on and so forth. I'm not entirely confident I should sign up for the panel with the expectation that, next week and onwards, I will have a series of off-wiki life events that will require a majority of my time (starting a Master's). Therefore, I will decline swimming in this pit at this time, which is not to say that I'm against joining similar panels later when the timing's more maneuverable. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- (raises hand) In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 19:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Awesome! If Ixtal's up for it then me + Iseult + Ixtal looks like a sufficient panel.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- S Marshall, now that I have my laptop, let me clarify my comments to Slava above. I have a very conservative conflict based off of this comment I made. Looking back, I think it was far too cautious of me to do so; closing stale discussions is not good practice. Slava above (granted, TBAN incoming for them) was fine with a solo closure by me; I've closed several discussions in the topic area. I had been considering polling the original participants (those that aren't TBANed) to see if they were also fine with this. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 01:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the NORN discussion needs a closure. Given that most of the original participants have subsequently been topic-banned, a fresh discussion with more explicit focus would be the best way forward. Katzrockso (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Subject to what the panel thinks, personally I'd be minded to close it all. The NORN one and all the follow-ons. There's been sufficient input and it's time to move on. How to weight the !votes of the now-tbanned editors is complex and difficult, and something I'd want to discuss with the panel because some I'd give more weight to than others. There are plenty of other difficult facets of this too.
- Iseult is wise to be leery of closing anything in a topic area where they've ever said they're INVOLVED. Being on a panel ought to be ok, though, imo.—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I count four editors TBANed/sitebanned, one pending, ten without sanctions that I’m aware of. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 15:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the NORN discussion needs a closure. Given that most of the original participants have subsequently been topic-banned, a fresh discussion with more explicit focus would be the best way forward. Katzrockso (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- S Marshall, now that I have my laptop, let me clarify my comments to Slava above. I have a very conservative conflict based off of this comment I made. Looking back, I think it was far too cautious of me to do so; closing stale discussions is not good practice. Slava above (granted, TBAN incoming for them) was fine with a solo closure by me; I've closed several discussions in the topic area. I had been considering polling the original participants (those that aren't TBANed) to see if they were also fine with this. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 01:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Awesome! If Ixtal's up for it then me + Iseult + Ixtal looks like a sufficient panel.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- You should probably ask at WP:DFD. FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Do we have an experienced closer with iron resolve and asbestos talk page willing to volunteer join a panel to close this?—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 June 2026)
- It's been three weeks since the last !vote Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?
[edit](Initiated 35 days ago on 7 July 2026)
FaviFake (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: The discussion has been moved to a dedicated subpage – Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions? It remains open, and I do think a formal close would be helpful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 July 2026)
- I think this would benefit from a closure, it was a pretty concrete and relatively simple proposal. FaviFake (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)