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. |
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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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 mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
[edit]Wikipedia:Administrative action review#13 September 2025 ECP indef protection at Antechinus by Jimfbleak
[edit](Initiated 28 days ago on 5 October 2025) A very busy discussion for the first day that's now become dormant for about a week. Some sort of administrative closure and resolution seems appropriate, especially since the page in question is indef-protected. Left guide (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 9 October 2025) This discussion regarding imposing CTOPs has been archived and needs closing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit]Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 10#RfC: Adopting a community position on WMF AI development
[edit](Initiated 158 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I was going to close this by myself, my one-paragraph version would say:
- The en.wiki community knows that Wikipedia's licencing terms permit third parties to develop AI tools based on Wikipedia. Third parties can and will develop tools that, for example, summarize Wikipedia articles, and the community has no choice but to accept this. But the community is wary both of AI's tendency to hallucinate and its tendency to reuse without attribution. Some community members are also concerned about AI's climate change implications. To the extent that the community can assert control over any AI apps that run on en.wiki content, we assert that control. We ask for the chance to test and challenge all AI tools before they're deployed, and to the extent that this is feasible, many members of the community would prefer to be consulted about important AI tools while they're still in development. We ask that where a novel tool is enabled, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, until fully tested and approved by us and other stakeholders. We insist that where a new AI-based tool is deployed, some way of opting out must exist.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BEBOLD? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've already got one close review open against me, so I think I won't be quite that bold. But if other experienced closers concur with me, then I might co-sign a close.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Since we're sharing ideas, I guess, I gave it a good read and here's my try (but again, I'm not an experienced closer nor admin so take with a grain of salt).
- At present, AI is integrated into the English Wikipedia in the context of antivandalism and content translation, with varying degrees of success. While some community members support cautious experimentation with certain AI features by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), we ask that the WMF keep the community updated to the extent that they are able to. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia community rejects any attempts by the WMF to deploy new uses of AI technology on the English Wikipedia without community consensus and approval.
- GoldRomean (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've already got one close review open against me, so I think I won't be quite that bold. But if other experienced closers concur with me, then I might co-sign a close.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BEBOLD? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 19 July 2025) No one has contributed to this for about two months and Mztourist says he will only accept the change if it is supported by an RfC. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 83 days ago on 12 August 2025) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205 § LLM/AI generated proposals? and its subsections? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree this should be closed. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 10 September 2025) Slowing down... also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- The RFC tag has now been removed, and there's only been one new comment in the last week and a half. The discussion potentially overlaps with ARBPIA and AP2, so an experienced closer would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- This has now been archived to archive 492, please restore to the main page if you close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 14 September 2025) Would someone please close this relatively straightforward RfC - thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources
[edit](Initiated 45 days ago on 18 September 2025) Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 40 days ago on 24 September 2025) RFC tag has been removed, ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 4 October 2025) I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editor could close this RfC once thirty days have passed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 2 days ago on 1 November 2025) Improper RFCBEFORE. No need for this to stay up. NotJamestack (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Not done this doesn't appear to be the sentiment in the discussion. CNC (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor There now seems to be larger sentiment in the discussion. NotJamestack (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support CNC's decision above. Option remains to come back to this page on a later date to reopen a closure request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor There now seems to be larger sentiment in the discussion. NotJamestack (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 66 | 0 | 66 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 13 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
(Initiated 113 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 7 September 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 17 September 2025) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 19 September 2025) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Relisted. Left guide (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 12 October 2025) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted. Left guide (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 14 October 2025) again, while consensus is clear, I can't use xfdcloser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreocooke (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Merge proposals
[edit](Initiated 224 days ago on 23 March 2025) Inactive for 7 months. FaviFake (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 20 July 2025) 30 days had passed since last !vote. Closed by original nominator. The dissenting voter then merged them anyway. Merge was undone but user threatened AN if OP did not re-open the discussion. Do not see this going anywhere by being opened longer and it has now become contentious.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 (Listings on this page are supposed to be neutral.) As I've explained there, no one was ever threatened. The standard procedure for closure reviews of mergers is to go to AN. I was stating my intention to follow the standard closure review process, given that the closer was evidently WP:INVOLVED. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to learn how the closure review process works. FaviFake (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to learn how the closure review process works
, very aware how it works. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)- Then you shouldn't have a problem with me transparently signaling my intention to follow it :) FaviFake (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 104 days ago on 22 July 2025) Discussion stalled. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 5 October 2025) The 7 days have passed (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 12 days ago on 21 October 2025) More than 10 days have passed and the discussion has become stale (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 33 days ago on 30 September 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 3 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 5 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 7 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 19 October 2025) Discussion appears to have settled on a move, one objection was raised at the start, but it looks to be a bit of a moot point (point is that the & is only used in signage and documentation for brevity, consensus appears to be that it is not the case) Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Closed by editor Abhiimanyu7. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 20 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 3 days ago on 30 October 2025) There is already extensive comment on the proposal to move the page to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (19:14, 30 October 2025) with an obvious consensus on favour. Before this snowballs can an uninvolved editor close the discussion today, even if under 24 hours? Billsmith60 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Note: this discussion was closed yesterday after only a few hours and after some edit warring over the close was returned to open. The page has also been discussed at ANI and a move was rejected at RMTR. Per WP:RMEC, this shouldn't be closed "before this snowballs", but only if snowball applies, which is questionable (there's certainly consensus and it'd be an WP:UPHILLBATTLE to overturn but remains possible imo, within 6 days at least). Personally I think best to wait another day at minimum until the discussion dies down and consensus is stronger. Per the previous controversy over closing, any non-admin close would be (without fail) a WP:BADNAC CNC (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- The volume of support for the page move is almost overwhelming now and an admin. or page mover should take a look very soon Billsmith60 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Andy Mabbett. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Would need an administrator to close, due to move protection. The RfC has many pages of comments, but a consensus appears to have crystalised, if one accepts that earlier objections have become outdated. This is a highly visibile issue, and that this RfC being ongoing means that there is more confusion than is neccessary on whether other articles should be re-worded. I thought it would be a good idea to have an uninvolved admin weigh in on whether WP:SNOW would apply here (discussion ongoing for ~2 days but it seems to be a foregone conclusion that the name of the subject has changed going on reliable sources). Quantum Burrito (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
- Have restored the previous archive request for context here. CNC (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Done by DrKay. CNC (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 150 days ago on 6 June 2025)
Too much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre/Archive 1#See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois
[edit](Initiated 69 days ago on 26 August 2025) - Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Permission to create beetle articles at a pace that exceeds the normal limit
[edit](Initiated 38 days ago on 26 September 2025)
I think that this will benefit from a clear closing summary. The question is whether the editor has permission to exceed the ordinary acceptable rate of article creation (25 to 50 per WP:MASSCREATE).
Please be concrete, specific, and unmistakble about both the permitted rate and whether there are any additional requirements, so that there can't be any drama over differing interpretations later. For example, for the rate, if consensus for a higher limit is not found, then say something like "is not allowed to create more than 50 articles per day", and if it is found, then something like "is allowed to create more than 50 articles per day" or "up to n articles per week" or whatever the result it. And if there are additional requirements (e.g., to cite x sources, or to write at least y words), then please either say what they are or say that there are none. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
- Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 10:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 23 days ago on 10 October 2025) DRV overdue for closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 16 October 2025)
This discussion seems to have ended and I think it will be useful to have an uninvolved closure to determine if there is consensus for Welsh Independence to be included in the Infobox of Wales Green Party as an ideology, consensus against inclusion or no consensus. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)