Wikipedia:Closure requests

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcuts

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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. 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. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through and Template:tlx ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, {{Resolved}}, and {{Tick}}.

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

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Antifa (United States)#RFC: Should "far-left" be added to the lead?

(Initiated 293 days ago on 13 October 2024) Archived before closure so have un-archived. Formal closure needed, topic has been raised again on talk page as edit request. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations

(Initiated 111 days ago on 13 April 2025) Formal closure needed, no contributions in over 2 months. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC Regarding MOS:POSTNOM

(Initiated 81 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 08:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 10#RfC: Adopting a community position on WMF AI development

(Initiated 65 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Misandry#Request for comment: "The Misandry Myth" in Psychology of Women Quarterly

(Initiated 51 days ago on 12 June 2025) It has been a week since the last response. Briefly, the discussion centered on the primary/secondary nature of a source and how to include it, mainly regarding appropriate wording. Some additional sources were also suggested and discussed. Dekadoka (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727 Its been a week, do you still expect to close this discussion? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on it. Because the outcome will possibly be contentious and the discussion itself is quite complex with several overlapping issues, I am trying to be extra careful. If somebody else wants to close it before me, go ahead. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Infobox government cabinet#RfC on composition bars in the infoboxes of cabinet articles

(Initiated 50 days ago on 13 June 2025) Most of the discussion was over by 17 June, and since then there has been only one response, on 7 July, which was 22 days ago. The RfC tag was removed and it looks like the topic is unlikely to attract more attention, so it's probably time for a closure. Impru20^talk 09:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer

(Initiated 42 days ago on 21 June 2025) Rfc tag has been removed by Legobot now. Only the general discussion, which as of now has nothing to do with the questions is being discussed. I believe the consensus has been reached. Ophyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 04:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Please close this soon. Temporary accounts will be deployed to enwiki in September 2025, about one month from now. Toadspike [Talk] 14:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done; editors may now apply for access at WP:PERM/TAIV. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bono state#RFC on formation of inland Akan polities

(Initiated 33 days ago on 30 June 2025) Last comment was 2 weeks ago and RfC tag is about to be removed. Probably not a fun one to close, not formatted well (or people didn't follow the formatting) and lengthy and repeated comments on source analysis, but only 6 participants. Someone will be getting a thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Quentin Crisp#RFC - Pronoun use

(Initiated 30 days ago on 3 July 2025) Been open about a month, votes have stabilized but discussion continues in circles. Formal close required. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ozzy Osbourne#Infobox image

(Initiated 11 days ago on 22 July 2025) Not technically an RfC; this did not feel contentious enough to avoid closure given consensus went a clear direction and the discussion had slowed. Has since been reverted as I had contributed prior so seeking a second opinion. MB 2437 23:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#RFC: Inclusion of Pakistani claim regarding Pahalgam attack in Background section

(Initiated 44 days ago on 20 June 2025) This RFC was ended by Legobot and closed by me due to what I considered clear and stable consensus. After an objection was raised regarding my involvement, I reopened it and submitted it for uninvolved closure. While that request was pending, two aligned !votes were added, which I believe may be the result of vote stacking. I've documented the concern on the talk page for transparency. I now request closure from an uninvolved editor, taking into account the timing and nature of those !votes, as well as the original body of discussion. However, if the closer believes those comments are valid and should be included in the assessment of consensus, I am willing to let the RFC continue for a longer period to allow more neutral participation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	44	44
TfD	1	21	22
MfD	1	0	1
FfD	1	15	16
RfD	0	25	25
AfD	0	5	5

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

Merge proposals

Talk:Resignation of Jacinda Ardern#Proposed merger

(Initiated 255 days ago on 20 November 2024) No comments for two months, previous comment was another three months before that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Coordinated Universal Time#Merge from UTC offset

(Initiated 240 days ago on 5 December 2024) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested moves

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

Other types of closing requests

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

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July#Gamergate

(Initiated 32 days ago on 1 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 July#Mario

(Initiated 16 days ago on 17 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards