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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.
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]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1221#Lawbookwriter adding multiple poor quality articles, reverting drafts & templates
[edit](Initiated 52 days ago on 8 April 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
closedby 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/IncidentArchive1222#Return to potentially POINTy editing
[edit](Initiated 47 days ago on 13 April 2026)
EvanTech10 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 20 April 2026)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- Unabbreviated close requested per [1]. HouseBlaster, am I correct in understanding that threads with community sanctions that don't involve administrative tools are open to be closed by any uninvolved editor? Iseult Δx talk to me 04:16, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- You are correct, though I would caution against closing this thread as a non-admin. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- I am leaning towards their ban from category and template, also extending the time duration of their archiving period to atleast 3 days because they have not actively responded to concerns raised there. Should I continue closing as a non-admin? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- You are correct, though I would caution against closing this thread as a non-admin. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:19, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 12 May 2026)
Seven days have passed, and there has been no comments in two days. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit]Talk:United States Semiquincentennial#RfC: Should the following sentence summarizing controversies related to America's 250th anniversary celebrations be added to the lead?
[edit](Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2026)
Last vote on April 18, last comment on April 22. Discussion has ended. 4-1 support. Need uninvolved closer. BootsED (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
- That's an inaccurate summary. There is no agreement on wording, the comments add various wording suggestions and all disagree with using the proposed wording. And it turns out this wasn't adequately distributed to WikiProjects and related article talk pages, which has now been done. Too early for a close. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is inaccurate. I submitted this proposal properly and notified interested editors in the politics noticeboard. After I submitted a request for closure, several other votes and comments were made, none of which supported the above user. I am curious to inquire what WikiProjects and related article talk pages this user has since notified and why as this was already noticed properly and had received feedback. BootsED (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2026)
Last !vote was a few days ago, discussion has stalled to a halt بادهای شمال ❄️ (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
- I've started work on closing this discussion, but I might give up or take a while. Not an easy close. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 12:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 3 May 2026)
May need closure, despite recent notification at WP:VPM moments ago. --George Ho (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 5 May 2026)
Experienced closer requested. Dw31415 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC), 01:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 3 | 12 | 141 | 156 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 13 | 15 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 2 | 9 | 5 | 16 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 86 | 86 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
(Initiated 91 days ago on 28 February 2026)
GoldRomean (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted on 15 May 2026. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 15#Category:Massacres of Muslims in Myanmar in 2017
[edit](Initiated 83 days ago on 8 March 2026)
GoldRomean (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted on 15 May 2026. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 days ago on 30 March 2026)
Please review this discussion started in March 2026. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 11 May 2026)
This deletion discussion was last relisted more than seven days ago and has recently received only one response in favour of deletion. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Qwerty123M, I'm not sure that this and the below discussion warrant listing. This scenario is covered by WP:SOFTDELETE and patrolling administrators regularly use it. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that these discussions should not have been relisted per WP:NOTBUREAU, but the decision is not within my control as I have asked that someone else on this page make that decision to avoid bias in making my decision per WP:CLOSEAFD, additionally I believe there is a bias towards relisting for many discussions on Wikipedia which means that more consensus can be found but minimal responses may continue to be received and prolonging a deletion discussion is not what Wikipedians should aim for per WP:XFDCLOSE. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 11 May 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days and received a minimal amount of participation. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 12 May 2026)
This is completely the same as the above AfD about the Division Series. We have agreed we want to merge the two leagues' LCS pages into this one instead. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 12 May 2026)
Note that most of the discussion took place on a WikiProject talk page (which the AfD page links to). I know this proposes deleting the "Division Series" page, but we have actually instead agreed to merging the American League Division Series and National League Division Series pages into the Division Series page. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 12 days ago on 18 May 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 22 May 2026)
Recent discussion though it’s a merge discussion now. – KaijuEditor (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Merge proposals
[edit]Talk:United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones#Proposed merge of Hannah Natanson FBI raid into United States v. Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones
[edit](Initiated 74 days ago on 17 March 2026)
Started about three months ago, no recent responses as of present. – KaijuEditor (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 12 days ago on 19 May 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days and has had a good amount of responses. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted – 04:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit]Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"
[edit](Initiated 70 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)
(Initiated 45 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[2].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)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 14 May 2026)
It started out as an splitting proposal - but there is consensus to move article. 🐈Cinaroot 04:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Solidarity petition and collective labor action following WMF Community Tech layoff
[edit](Initiated 8 days ago on 22 May 2026)
– May need a WP:BARTENDER's, idk. It's pretty time-sensitive since things may develop Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 5 days ago on 25 May 2026)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slava570 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)