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. |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
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 |
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
[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 mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
[edit]Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus
[edit](Initiated 51 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 118 days ago on 7 October 2024) Overdue for closing by looks of it, thanks in advance. CNC (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 97 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Gaza war infobox#RfC: Should the US and UK be added as allies to Israel in the infobox?
[edit](Initiated 90 days ago on 4 November 2024) Proposed inclusion of America as a belligerent to the Gaza War page, originally opened on 4 November 2024. There are a lot of votes with a slight majority in favour of inclusion (unless I made a mistake in counting, so please do check). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk • contribs) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?
[edit](Initiated 86 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 85 days ago on 9 November 2024) This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 16 December 2024) At least two contentious topics apply, blp and ap. --Hipal (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 21 December 2024) This was on ANRFC earlier today and I closed it, but I've reverted my closure. I'm bringing this back and asking my fellow wikipedians to please send someone with actual experience this time. guninvalid (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping: @Bluethricecreamman guninvalid (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Should we mention in the lead the "increased anti-Chinese racism."
[edit](Initiated 34 days ago on 30 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and last !vote was 6 days ago. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243#RfC: Should we principally refer to this as a "crash" or an "accident"?
[edit](Initiated 31 days ago on 1 January 2025) Discussion has died down and most arguments are repeats. guninvalid (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 2 January 2025) It doesn't appear there will be any additional input, so now needs closing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 8 January 2025) Discussion has slowed down, last vote was on 28 Jan, and second last another week earlier on 21 Jan. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 08:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 23 days ago on 10 January 2025) The last !vote was 4 days ago and discussion has slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 06:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Should the page describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes?
[edit](Initiated 12 days ago on 21 January 2025) Clear 31-7 snowball consensus in favor of RfC, but need an uninvolved editor to be the closer, especially due to the contentious nature of the topic. BootsED (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 56 | 0 | 56 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 39 | 0 | 39 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 90 | 0 | 90 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 44 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster:
Relisted. ToThAc (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC) 
Done by Marcocapelle. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done by Timrollpickering. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 15 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 130 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 17 December 2024) Merge discussion initiated 17 December has run its course. Skyerise (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.
There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.
I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.
Cheers, Will Thorpe (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 18 January 2025) Split discussion has run it's course, only two votes in past week. CNC (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Seeking consensus for Cleveland & Trump presidental photos
[edit](Initiated 8 days ago on 25 January 2025) This is a lengthy discussion as it's spread across nine other sections (since closed, listed and linked). This is a high-traffic page with many new and/or one-time users, (possibly sock & meat puppets as wel), and of course edit-warring. Went the informal route to try and keep it as simple as possible. It's now been more than seven days, would like to see (hopefully an admin or very experienced closer) assess and close this. Thanks - \\'cLf 13:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 4 days ago on 29 January 2025) After a recent RFC close at Special:PermanentLink/1267363651#RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism, there's been a separate discussion of a WP:MORATORIUM. All editors from the RFC were pinged (besides those already involved and others who have been topic banned) and discussion has now slowed with that last !vote a couple of days ago. Can we please get an independent closer to determine what consensus is regarding the moratorium proposal. TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)