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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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](Initiated 29 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](Initiated 377 days ago on 26 October 2024) RfC expired almost a year ago. It's continued to attract some comments and preference votes without ever being closed. --Belbury (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 10#RfC: Adopting a community position on WMF AI development
[edit](Initiated 162 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 111 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 87 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)
- I thanked @Newslinger for requesting this initially, but wanted to add my support and a request that the question of WP:LLMDISCLOSE being made policy which was suggested also be considered in the close if possible. My hope is that there was enough support for that to avoid the need for a further RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 27 August 2025) No new additions for over a month, no clear cut consensus. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 2:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 days ago on 7 September 2025) The RfC has run for two months and has received sufficient participation. Kindly close the discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 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 54 days ago on 14 September 2025) Would someone please close this relatively straightforward RfC - thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 15 September 2025) RfC tag was removed on October 15. No comments have been made since October 9. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources
[edit](Initiated 50 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 34 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)
- This RfC is ready for closure. I would appreciate assistance in this matter. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 6 October 2025) Discussion within the RFC has died down, with the last comment posted 17 days ago. Personally I find the discussion to be very messy so I don't dare to close this myself. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 14 October 2025) Only 22 days run on this, but aside from a posting today, there has been nothing since 19 October and potentially a clear consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Endorse closure. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 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 | 67 | 0 | 67 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 42 | 0 | 42 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 117 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 September 2025) voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 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 24 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 228 days ago on 23 March 2025) Inactive for 7 months. FaviFake (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 144 days ago on 16 June 2025) Proposed since June 2025. FaviFake (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 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)
Done Soni (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 October 2025) The 7 days have passed (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 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 38 days ago on 30 September 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 7 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 20 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 29 October 2025) – Clear consensus towards using the word "genocide" over the word "massacres". Consensus seems to be "Masalit Genocide". Although further discussion may be needed regarding the possibility of expanding the article to "Second Darfur Genocide" or creating a separate page, consensus seems to be fine with "Masalit Genocide". Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 154 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 73 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)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 10 October 2025)
Time for this discussion to be closed—no recent comments, lots of contributions made, and the atmosphere/focus of the talk page has shifted. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 10 October 2025) DRV overdue for closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 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)