 | 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Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.
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 68 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)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger
edit(Initiated 1 day ago on 19 June 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk 15:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
- This hasn't been open quite 24 hours as yet, but it will have been in about 5 1/2 hours. Posting this here now to get any admin to think about closing this. It appears that there is consensus for some sort of action. TarnishedPathtalk 15:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 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
editTalk:United States Semiquincentennial#RfC: Should the following sentence summarizing controversies related to America's 250th anniversary celebrations be added to the lead?
edit(Initiated 70 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)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is going to be a hard (but unheated) discussion to close. Props to whoever tackles it. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 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 37 days ago on 14 May 2026)
This was initiated over a month ago, it seems to be getting stragglers but no convincing consensus. Can we get a neutral third-party closer here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarbarty (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 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 36 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 21 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)
- I'd like to bump this closure request, comments are getting sparser still, with even fewer unique arguments. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 213#Should we allow stewards to view deleted pages for non-steward roles?
edit(Initiated 18 days ago on 2 June 2026)
Archived, but should be pretty quick; there's not a lot to read. Since it's a proposed policy change, this should ideally get a formal close. Toadspike [Talk] 19:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 8 days ago on 12 June 2026)
Discussion on proposed infobox change, with potential to set a precedent for other television series articles, has been exhausted with no clear consensus, so an assessment/closure from a uninvolved editor would be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U-Mos (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 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 | 1 | 8 | 101 | 63 | 173 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 16 | 20 | 37 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| FfD | 0 | 5 | 66 | 41 | 112 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 91 | 97 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 |
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_23#Category:Children_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain
edit(Initiated 127 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)
(Initiated 68 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 13 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 8 days ago on 12 June 2026)
Discussion got moved. – KaijuEditor (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 8 days ago on 12 June 2026)
A second nomination has garnered more participation after I notified WP:College basketball. This time, a clear consensus has been established against the existence of the article. There was minor differences in whether to merge + redirect or delete this article entirely, and although I originally promoted merging/redirecting, I agree now with the two editors who proposed deletion, as "Opening Round" is way too broad and general of a phrase that a disambiguation page would likely not be able to fully satisfy all uses. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:48, 20 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
editPlace new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
editOther types of closing requests
edit(Initiated 234 days ago on 29 October 2025)
No replies for over two months. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 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 91 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 70 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 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 65 days ago on 16 April 2026)
No replies recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Done - (Initiated 37 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)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 20 May 2026)
– 339 comments, 59 people in discussion, new comments have mostly died off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Solidarity petition and collective labor action following WMF Community Tech layoff
edit(Initiated 29 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 24 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 1 day ago on 19 June 2026)
This is appearing like it is WP:SNOWing. Note, WP:VPR and WP:VPP have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 15:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)