Wikipedia:Closure requests
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
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 consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. Articles for 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 advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
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 mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
[edit](Initiated 20 days ago on 3 June 2025) The subsection "Indef proposal" has been open for 13 days, and there have been no new comments there in the last five days. Would be nice if that subthread is closed now by an uninvolved admin. Kind regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal 2: Dicklyon Topic-Banned from Capitalization
[edit](Initiated 15 days ago on 8 June 2025) Can an uninvolved admin assess the consensus of Proposal 2 regarding the topic ban and close this part of the discussion, please? Thank you! Some1 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Consider closing the entire Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Persistent, long-term battleground behavior from multiple editors at capitalization RMs, as the discussion and evidence that sprawled into the later threads have context for assessing the TBAN proposal. —Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 79 days ago on 5 April 2025) - Requesting review and closure of an RfC. Open since 5 April. Located at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels#RfC on book review aggregators. The discussion is lengthy, so the assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin who is experienced in evaluating consensus based on the strength of the arguments in alignment with policy would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Οἶδα (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
Done -- Beland (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Beland! Your attention to ensuring a fair balance in both the commentary and conclusions is greatly appreciated. Οἶδα (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 79 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews
[edit](Initiated 79 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 65 days ago on 20 April 2025) – Last comment from 27 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 25 April 2025) - RfC was opened about a month ago and has stabilized. While the consensus of the RfC seems obvious, a closure with a definitive statement by a neutral editor would be useful. The labeling question pertains to a large number of articles with Catalan subjects. This and other similar RfCs and discussions will be used as a precedent for such articles. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 25 April 2025) No new comments in the last two weeks -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Now archived. If you close please restore to the noticeboard when you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Talk:List of programs broadcast by CBS#Request for comment on including "in development" dates in list form
[edit](Initiated 58 days ago on 26 April 2025) Expired RfC with no comments in over a month and fairly light involvement to start with. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 3 May 2025) - There was a robust discussion but the last !vote was four days ago, and only two !votes in the last ten days. Seems like a fairly straightforward/easy close. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Now archived. If you close please restore to the noticeboard when you do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you! Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 May 2025) Third of a three part RfC; last !vote was on 31 May 2025. (Repeating comment from above) Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 20 May 2025) Second of a three part RfC; bulk of the discussion occurred in May but there were 2 !votes in June (last one on 11 June 2025). (Repeating comment from above) Probably should be closed by an experienced editor since the RfC was brought up in a discussion on a larger pattern of editing conflict over at ANI. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 54 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 13 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 40 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 39 |
(Initiated 28 days ago on 27 May 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Done -- Beland (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Merge proposals
[edit]Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archives/ 1#Proposed merge of Operation Bunyanun Marsoos into 2025 India–Pakistan strikes
[edit](Initiated 45 days ago on 10 May 2025) These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 37 days ago on 17 May 2025) Lengthy discussion mainly between three editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 00:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 36 days ago on 18 May 2025) Further discussion is unlikely to change the outcome.Legend of 14 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 22 May 2025) Very complex RM which has seen a number of different proposals and involved a "speedy move". Have not seen new additions to the discussion in a few days now. I was the user who opened this RM (I changed my username a few weeks after discussion began). OokiiNeko 猫 talk 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit]Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#California State University, Northridge (more broadly: do alumni have COI?)
[edit](Initiated 21 days ago on 3 June 2025) A rough consensus seems to have emerged here, but it could use a close with a quick summary for ease of future reference and for allowing the result to be actioned. Sdkb talk 17:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)