Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Closure requests

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFCC)

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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.

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

Administrative discussions

edit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1222#Return to potentially POINTy editing

edit

(Initiated 61 days ago on 13 April 2026)
EvanTech10 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrative action review#May 2026 Rollback by Johnbod

edit

(Initiated 32 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)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

edit

Requests for comment

edit
edit

(Initiated 63 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack#RfC about characterizing the January 6 United States Capitol attack as a coup

edit

(Initiated 60 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Omniglot

edit

(Initiated 46 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jesus#RfC on what most Christians believe

edit

Done - (Initiated 39 days ago on 5 May 2026)
Experienced closer requested. Dw31415 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC), 01:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dw31415, would you still like a formal closure? An agreement seems to have been reached both on the talk and in the article; the bold edit made to the lede is now stable. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 08:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iseult, I appreciate @S Marshall’s close. Without it early participants would have a valid concern that the article was changed. Dw31415 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Dw31415 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Restore Britain#Request for Comment: Political Position

edit

(Initiated 14 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)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RFC: How should the IAGS be described in body of the article?

edit

(Initiated 30 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)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

edit


Deletion discussions

edit
XFD backlog
V Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 2 10 127 54 193
TfD 0 1 16 7 24
MfD 0 0 1 2 3
FfD 1 6 68 15 90
RfD 0 0 47 39 86
AfD 0 0 0 17 17

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_30#Category:Artificial intelligence art

edit

(Initiated 124 days ago on 10 February 2026)
Relisted twice. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_23#Category:Children_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain

edit

(Initiated 120 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)[reply]

It's the same discussion that's just been relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 May 15#Category:Massacres of Muslims in Myanmar in 2017

edit

(Initiated 97 days ago on 8 March 2026)
GoldRomean (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on 15 May 2026. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to relist time. --slakr\ talk / 19:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
For everyone else: relisted 29 days ago --slakr\ talk / 17:38, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 13#Medal templates 2

edit

(Initiated 61 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 17#S*x

edit

(Initiated 27 days ago on 17 May 2026)
As of this comment, this discussion is not necessarily that old and has yet to be real listed; however, the discussion is a bit all over the place and I'm not sure a relisting will help. Consensus may be clear enough for a WP:BARTENDER at this point. (However, I cannot close the discussion since I am WP:INVOLVED.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion remains open and has not been re-listed once in 24 days since it was first listed. I agree with @Steel1943 that relisting is unlikely to be helpful given the large number of participants and array of opinions expressed. I also agree that a bartender's close or WP:NCRET is likely in order (and have previously said so in the discussion). The situation is now further complicated by the fact that a requested move was initiated and closed in the middle of the RfD, impacting two of the pages that have been suggested targets for the redirect. All of the bolded !votes were placed prior to the RM and many refer to page titles that have been swapped. All of the contributions after May 27 are discussions of how to close this or how to interpret all the pre-RM !votes. Anyway, attention to this thread would be greatly appreciated! —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Longfield

edit

(Initiated 7 days ago on 6 June 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty123M No, it has not. The discussion page was created at 06:23 UTC, 6 June 2026 it is just now 04:00 UTC 13 June. It is just shy of of 7 full 24-hour days as I type this. —Myceteae🌈 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

edit

Merge proposals

edit

Place new discussions concerning merge proposals 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

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania#Splitting proposal

edit

(Initiated 227 days ago on 29 October 2025)
No replies for over two months. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Libertarian authoritarianism#Splitting proposal

edit

(Initiated 204 days ago on 21 November 2025)
No replies for three months. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests/Archive 5#RFC: Reza Pahlavi as "Lead figure" in the infobox

edit

(Initiated 118 days ago on 15 February 2026)
Discussion has ended.VR 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Admission to practice law#Split proposal

edit

(Initiated 111 days ago on 22 February 2026)
No replies at all for a while. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"

edit

(Initiated 83 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)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Split how-to

edit

(Initiated 63 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine

edit

(Initiated 59 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Democratic backsliding in the United States#Split article into "Trump and authoritarianism"

edit

(Initiated 58 days ago on 16 April 2026)
No replies recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Claude (language model)#Splitting proposal

edit

(Initiated 30 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)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Solidarity petition and collective labor action following WMF Community Tech layoff

edit

(Initiated 22 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review#Persecution of transgender people under the second Trump administration

edit

(Initiated 17 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)[reply]

Talk:West Bengal#Images in IB

edit

(Initiated 14 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)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=1359229825"