 | 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Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.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 |
|---|
|
Please 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(Initiated 9 days ago on 12 July 2026)
This has been going on for 8 days and has generated 233 comments from 60 editors. TarnishedPathtalk 22:04, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
editRequests for comment
edit(Initiated 84 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
(Initiated 67 days ago on 14 May 2026)
RfC template expired. The last !vote was on 5 June. Question about a BLP lead role description. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 May 2026)
Discussion has slowed and is ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Done - (Initiated 54 days ago on 27 May 2026)
RFC tag expired. TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: Non-free pre-death photos of deceased individual low-profile victims in articles about primarily their own deaths
edit(Initiated 38 days ago on 12 June 2026)
R. G. Checkers talk 07:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Talk:Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#RfC:_Should_"far-right"_be_added_to_the_political_position_of_the_RSS?
edit(Initiated 35 days ago on 15 June 2026)
- More than 1 month passed. Orientls (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 24 June 2026)
No !votes for nearly a week, ripe for closing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 21 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)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
edit
XfD discussions
edit| V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 21 | 64 | 85 |
| TfD | 1 | 0 | 3 | 20 | 24 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 22 | 29 | 4 | 55 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 49 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 51 | 51 |
Call to close old discussions
editMost new discussions at WP:CFD are closed by non-admins quite rapidly, but the list of unclosed older discussions is almost the same as a month or maybe even two months ago. Could one or two administrators please have a look at it. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_June_11#Category:Sea_captains_from_New_York_(state)
edit(Initiated 150 days ago on 21 February 2026)
Relisted twice, no new comments since day of second relist (June 11). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 98 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)
Done - (Initiated 53 days ago on 28 May 2026)
This discussion has been relisted twice, but the discussion has not had anything new added to it other than relists for over a month. Casablanca 🪨(T) 15:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Done. Courtesy ping to nom @Casablanca Rock. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 44 days ago on 6 June 2026)
Closure long overdue, IMO. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 40 days ago on 10 June 2026)
Discussion has been open for over a month. JHD0919 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Done - (Initiated 40 days ago on 10 June 2026)
Discussion has been open for over a month. JHD0919 (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Closed by AnomieBOT. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 40 days ago on 10 June 2026)
Discussion has been open for over a month. JHD0919 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Relisted, 19 July 26. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 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)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 28 June 2026)
Closure by uninvolved editor is definitely needed. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- This was just relisted to July 14. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
editMerge proposals
editPlace new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
edit
Requested moves
editDone - (Initiated 28 days ago on 22 June 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs) 10:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed. Maltazarian, courtesy ping for the nom. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 17:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, nice, thanks. That ones been overdue; a messy discussion dead and headed to no consensus for a while, and not one I can close because I'm the guy who charged into it not having fully considered the nuances. Think I've got another trainwreck I'm responsible for starting lying around somewhere needing to be sent here. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Done - (Initiated 18 days ago on 2 July 2026)
A messy and very tense discussion featuring two entrenched camps and a disagreement with a focal point that is relatively rare, but often leads to quite bitter discussions: whether the guidance on a particular WikiProject advice page is broad or local consensus. An RfC is likely to follow after the close. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed, Maltazarian, thanks, just conflicted myself from that RfC which'll be opened in, idk, twenty minutes In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Done - (Initiated 10 days ago on 10 July 2026)
Open 10 days with no relist. Last comment/!vote July 12. I think this one is straightforward and should have been closed on day 8 but it has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
- Done by User:Robloxguest3. My posting here was probably premature! —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
editOther types of closing requests
edit(Initiated 264 days ago on 29 October 2025)
No replies for over two months. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 167 days ago on 3 February 2026)
This is a weird case, as while consensus is in favor of a split, the draft that was mentioned was deleted. Anyway, I was wondering if this could be closed. ~2026-40549-86 (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 41#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"
edit(Initiated 121 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 100 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 96 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)
Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"
edit(Initiated 95 days ago on 16 April 2026)
No replies recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Pinging this, we still need a close whenever possible Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 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)
Discussion has died down and now it is on a standalone page. Only one new comment since the page was split. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this needs a close, it was just a poll not a RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- This should definitely be closed, it was a large discussion. FaviFake (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- See the link in my first comment to the editor who started the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I saw it. My comment doesn't contradict it. FaviFake (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- Then what should be done with the original proposal? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should be closed. It attracted 345 comments, more than enough to form a consensus. FaviFake (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Then what should be done with the original proposal? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- I saw it. My comment doesn't contradict it. FaviFake (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- See the link in my first comment to the editor who started the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 27 May 2026)
It's been a week, about 2 days since last !vote. Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 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)