 | 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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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(Initiated 63 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 34 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
editRequests for comment
editWikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RFC on Henry II, Count of Champagne to Henry II of Champagne format
editDone - (Initiated 114 days ago on 22 February 2026)
There have been no new comments since March, and so I believe that this is overdue for closure. The outcome seems clear to me, but I am obviously too involved. Thanks in advance. Surtsicna (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
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 65 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)
Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack#RfC about characterizing the January 6 United States Capitol attack as a coup
edit(Initiated 62 days ago on 14 April 2026)
A formal close would be appreciated, one way or the other. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 14 May 2026)
RfC template expired. The last !vote was on 5 June. Question about a BLP lead role description. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 14 May 2026)
RfC template expired. Discussion is ripe for closure. There haven't been any new comments for the past six days. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 May 2026)
Discussion has slowed and is ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 30 May 2026)
Not an urgent need to be closed, but discussion seems to have stagnated and no new arguments are coming forth. Whilst the RfC itself hasn't been open particularly long, it is a glorified continuation of Talk:Restore Britain#Political position, a non-RfC discussion that was closed in order to open the RfC. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:18, 8 June 2026 (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 | 2 | 10 | 120 | 66 | 198 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 16 | 17 | 34 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 5 | 68 | 24 | 97 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 26 | 71 | 97 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58 | 58 |
(Initiated 126 days ago on 10 February 2026)
Relisted twice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_23#Category:Children_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain
edit(Initiated 122 days ago on 13 February 2026)
There is also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_30#Category:Children_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain. The two discussions are overlapping or complementary. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- It's the same discussion that's just been relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not quite. One nomination starts with William Petty, the other with Margaret Thatcher. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- Uh-uh. Look just above Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:Children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom (with the Iron Lady) to find the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:Children of prime ministers of Great Britain relist. One is a UK list, and the other is a GB list. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 15#Category:Massacres of Muslims in Myanmar in 2017
edit(Initiated 99 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)
- Updated to relist time. --slakr\ talk / 19:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Slakr: I have reverted your timestamp change. The timestamp is for when the discussion was initiated, not for when it was most recently relisted. The timestamp gives closers an accurate picture of how many days the discussion has been opened. Please leave that date as is. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- The timestamp helps would-be closers—specifically, me—gauge how stale a discussion is. It directly affects how "green" or "red and bolded" it appears. I feel that setting it to 3 months ago, despite there being relists, doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the template and isn't the most helpful to people like me, who are ideally looking to deal with the least active, most actionable requests first. You're more than welcome to set it to whatever you want, though; I'll just skip over it for now. --slakr\ talk / 16:59, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- For everyone else: relisted 31 days ago --slakr\ talk / 17:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- To editor Slakr: I agree that knowing the relist date is very important and helpful to closers like you and me. That's why when I find a relisted discussion like this one, I change the link and annotate the relist to inform potential closers. Steel man is also very much correct, though. The "initiated" timestamp should remain unaltered. Another reason for that is to keep these entries in chronological order, so closers will know precisely just how old these entries are. That's always been an important distinction on this page. Best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- That's good input. I opened a discussion at the template, and I encourage you both to provide input there. Personally, it'd be nice to see both dates—both the original discussion date and the latest relist date. --slakr\ talk / 17:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- To editor Slakr: I agree that knowing the relist date is very important and helpful to closers like you and me. That's why when I find a relisted discussion like this one, I change the link and annotate the relist to inform potential closers. Steel man is also very much correct, though. The "initiated" timestamp should remain unaltered. Another reason for that is to keep these entries in chronological order, so closers will know precisely just how old these entries are. That's always been an important distinction on this page. Best to you and yours! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Slakr: I have reverted your timestamp change. The timestamp is for when the discussion was initiated, not for when it was most recently relisted. The timestamp gives closers an accurate picture of how many days the discussion has been opened. Please leave that date as is. Thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 13 April 2026)
Most of the usual TfD closers are involved and the discussion is getting quite old. Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 8 days ago on 7 June 2026)
It has almost been seven days since this nomination was opened and has minimal responses so this discussion should be closed soon per WP:SOFTDELETE. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 3 days ago on 12 June 2026)
Discussion got moved. – KaijuEditor (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
editMerge proposals
editPlace new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
edit
Requested moves
editDone - (Initiated 8 days ago on 7 June 2026)
This discussion has been open for almost seven days so will require closing soon, the discussion has had minimal activity. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
editOther types of closing requests
edit(Initiated 229 days ago on 29 October 2025)
No replies for over two months. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 120 days ago on 15 February 2026)
Discussion has ended.VR 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"
edit(Initiated 86 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 65 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 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.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)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"
edit(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 April 2026)
No replies recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 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 24 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 19 days ago on 27 May 2026)
It's been a week, about 2 days since last !vote. Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 30 May 2026)
The consensus is for whether the image should be included in infobox or not but later also went about keeping the old infobox or the current one. Sddarealone (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)