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 close discussions if consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. changes to policies or guidelines).
- Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.
- Just implement the decision!
- Do not post here to rush the closure.
- 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.
- Write 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.
- Uninvolved non-admins may close most discussions.
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.
Unregistered editors may not close discussions, and non-admins may not make closes they are unable to implement. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins.
Technical instructions for closers |
|---|
|
You can 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 65 days ago on 19 August 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 16 September 2026)
This discussion was dragging on for a month, beginning with a conduct issue about one editor, then digressing into a lengthy discussion about sourcing of airport destination lists, which was not really in the scope of WP:ANI, then there was another conduct issue, then the discussion of sourcing resumed, then fizzled out. I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion of sanctions against any editors, rather than having that be archived without action. The discussion of sourcing probably should be archived without action and resumed somewhere else. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2026 (UTC)--
- The discussion, or at least the posting of statements back and forth, has resumed. I trust that uninvolved administrators can use judgment as to whether and when closure is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
- A Request for Arbitration has been filed. It may be appropriate for an uninvolved administrator to close this dispute as being referred to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit]Completed - (Initiated 1867 days ago on 12 September 2021)
– This is an historic RfC that has been archived without a close. Last comment made 21 September 2021. As the question has been asked at the talk page again, I copied the discussion from the archive and request a close. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Cinderella157, I’m really disinclined to close so old a discussion. Consensus can readily change in the meantime. Can normal discussion resolve this? In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 21:50, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Iseult here; a new RFC should be held to answer that question instead of the old RFC being revived (presuming that an RFC is necessary to resolve the question). Indeed, consensus can change, and 5 years is a lot of time for more perspective to have taken place on the subject. Gramix13 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Not done for clarity, even though the template requires done=y for archiving purposes. CNCin solidarity (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Iseult here; a new RFC should be held to answer that question instead of the old RFC being revived (presuming that an RFC is necessary to resolve the question). Indeed, consensus can change, and 5 years is a lot of time for more perspective to have taken place on the subject. Gramix13 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 134 days ago on 11 June 2026)
Just noticed that this RFC, which ended on 11 July, was never formally closed by anyone. As initiator, I didn't want to, although I believe that the outcome is obvious (I summed it up here). If someone uninvolved has a moment to formally close it, that'd be lovely of you. • a frantic turtle 🐢 solidarity 16:42, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 87 days ago on 28 July 2026)
Some discussions on this page have already been closed per WP:SNOW but there are still some more discussions to close under the snowball clause. I don't think every one of them can be closed yet though. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- This was just listed yesterday at WP:CENT and the vast majority of comments have come in since then. I'd say, even if a particular proposal appears to be snowing, closers should wait a few days before hatting it. Sdkb talk 13:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's summer after all. FaviFake (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's now been 30 days since the RfC began, so we are ready for regular (non-SNOW) closes. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- And it is now autumn in the Northern Hemisphere. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
- Like other before me, I closed a couple subsections, and I may close more if I have additional free time in the future. But let this be a lesson to all as to why not to have 30-sub-part RFCs: either the participants need to close it themselves (which is allowed!) or else everyone is going to be waiting for months for uninvolved volunteers to spend the dozens of hours necessary to read and close such a long RFC with so many subparts. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 217#Should we introduce additional time limits for DYK nominations, in addition to the existing DYKTIMEOUT guidelines?
[edit](Initiated 78 days ago on 6 August 2026)
Last comment was 12 days ago. Someone please put this out of its misery. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 12 August 2026)
FaviFake (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 3 September 2026)
Conversation has lasted over 30 days and appears to have stalled. An uninvolved closer is requested. Jacob Rampino (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 50 days ago on 3 September 2026)
Legobot did its thing. FaviFake (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 10 September 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 16:38, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 7 October 2026)
This discussion has been open for about eight days and may be in need of a WP:SNOW closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. This can't possibly reach "no consensus", better to close it earlier. FaviFake (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]XfD discussions
[edit]| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 13 | 12 | 33 | 57 | 115 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 9 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| FfD | 0 | 15 | 16 | 12 | 43 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 65 | 65 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 172 days ago on 4 May 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- Jeez, how often to XfD discussion stretch over so many months without closure? Even PAM discussions were closed faster than these! FaviFake (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- This is distressingly normal at CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 163 days ago on 13 May 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 158 days ago on 18 May 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 20 June 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_9#Category:Anti-Palestinian_sentiment_in_Palestine
[edit](Initiated 113 days ago on 2 July 2026)
Note that one of the participants was later CBANned. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 107 days ago on 8 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 September 26#Uncontainerize American people of Scottish descent and American people of Welsh descent
[edit](Initiated 65 days ago on 19 August 2026)
The discussion that started this CFD has already been archived, so it would be nice to get closure on this as well. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 October 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit]Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 113 days ago on 3 July 2026)
I think there can be a consensus to this discussion, but that should be evaluated by an independent observer. If necessary/no consensus is found I will start a formal RfC but I'd like to avoid an RfC is necessary as it is costly. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 58#HIP 99770 b: repeated NOR/SYNTH in recent lead description edits
[edit](Initiated 90 days ago on 25 July 2026)
The classification question for HIP 99770 b (planet vs. a “planet or brown dwarf” hedge) was discussed in July-August 2026 at WP:NORN (post 1) and WP:NPOVN (post 2). The filings were left up for weeks for other editors to offer comments.
Every editor who commented -- other than the editor who added the material -- agreed that the added material ("planet *or* brown dwarf") was WP:SYNTH. One of the uninvolved editors then closed post 2 (a non-admin closure), referencing post 1 and reverted the added SYNTH materials on HIP 99770 b. Both discussions have since been archived.
Two months later (i.e. yesterday), the editor party to the original dispute has now reinstated material identified by others as SYNTH, arguing among other things that the uninvolved editor was not in fact uninvolved since he offered an evaluation on whether this material was SYNTH based on the disputing parties' arguments and others' comments.
To resolve this cleanly, I’m requesting an uninvolved editor review the archived NORN and NPOVN discussions and, if they agree it is warranted, formally close these discussions.
I’m not re-arguing the merits here; the full discussion is at the links above. A formal, clearly uninvolved close would settle both the sourcing question and the procedural concern that has been raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
