Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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 consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

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.

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. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• 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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

(Initiated 79 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC:_Adding_countries_as_supporters_of_Ukraine_to_the_infobox

(Initiated 44 days ago on 17 January 2025) The discussion has reached an end, no new arguments are being presented. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 10:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2028_United_States_presidential_election#RfC:_Does_Michelle_Obama_meet_the_consensus_criteria_for_inclusion_in_this_article?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 22 January 2025) This should be a relatively easy close. Chetsford (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chetsford, would you please elaborate on why you view this as an easy close? If you're willing to accept "C" as you mentioned, then I agree. If you're asking a closer to weigh the consensus in this RfC versus the consensus discussion on the criteria for enclosure, that might be a little more difficult. Dw31415 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"would you please elaborate on why you view this as an easy close" It seems clear beyond need of explanation to me that it's a consensus C close. That said, anyone who feels that it would be unreasonably difficult for them to close should, of course, feel empowered not to do so without any fear of angst or torment. Whether or not I "accept" C is immaterial as Chetsford is not the King of Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... I’m new to closing and request another uninvolved editor to review the draft I’ve provided at the top of the RfC. Specifically, many of the respondents call for eliminating the potential candidates section entirely. A potential option that I’m too inexperienced to assess whether this RfC should be modified to focus on that broader question or if it should be left to involved editors to raise a new RfC on that question. Dw31415 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Amending ATD-R

(Initiated 38 days ago on 24 January 2025) RfC tag was removed recently. Needs review soon before the bot archives the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

An experienced editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies should close this one. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind two or more participants doing a collaborative closure. I bet others assume that one editor suffices. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I will support a collaborative closure if someone takes the lead in drafting the closing statement. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC on the explanation of SPS

(Initiated 35 days ago on 26 January 2025) It's been open for a month, and the RfC tag was removed on 25 February. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ross Ulbricht#RfC: What should the first sentence refer to Ulbricht as?

(Initiated 29 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion is dormant after running its course after a brief while. Ripe for an uncontroversial close. guninvalid (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities

(Initiated 14 days ago on 17 February 2025) Fizzled out, round in circles, consensus seems clear. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I went to see if this was an easy close for an inexperienced closer like me. It is not. There’s a complexity here with some procedural objections. If the procedural objections are valid, care must be given so as not to appear to support the fringe theory in question. Dw31415 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Given my previous experiences closing RfCs, I'll take my time with this one. I've already come to a conclusion but I'll try to be better-reasoned about this. Someone else is welcome to come in and close in the meantime, but I'll give myself a day or two and some time to reread and see if I still agree with my conclusion. guninvalid (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done Courtesy ping: @User:Aaron Liu @User:Dw31415 guninvalid (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections#RfC

(Initiated 9 days ago on 21 February 2025) SilverLocust 💬 11:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather let this keep running. While it looked early on like it was snowballing in favor of C, there's now a fair amount of variety in the newer votes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	0	39	0	39
TfD	0	0	13	0	13
MfD	0	0	7	0	7
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	85	0	85
AfD	0	0	9	0	9

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode_2: j-l)

(Initiated 65 days ago on 27 December 2024) Would've tackled closing this one myself, but there's at least a couple of these which probably will get a delete result, and I'm not an admin. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This discussion was relisted for technical reasons (the RFD page was too large). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_9#Category:International_airports_by_country

(Initiated 30 days ago on 1 February 2025) Relisting this because an editor requested that an Admin close the discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Moratorium on this nonsense.

(Initiated 19 days ago on 11 February 2025) Moratorium proposal following multiple discussions (including a RFC and RMs) about whether the article name should be changed to "Gulf of America" or whether that should be included in the lead. Last !vote was 28/02/2025. TarnishedPath^talk 02:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath would you please add a link to what a Wikipedia discussion moratorium is? I ask because I’m not familiar with the concept and it might be beneficial to others who see this as well. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415 WP:MORATORIUM. I hope that's what you were asking for. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)