Wikipedia:Closure requests

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice 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
41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are automatically archived by .

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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

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. This will set appropriate categories and trigger ClueBot III to archive the request. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through.

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

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements

(Initiated 76 days ago on 19 January 2026)
RFC is about to expire and has largely died down, with the newest comment made about a week ago. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 04:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North Africa#Request for Comment - Inclusion of Content Ethnic Groups Section

(Initiated 59 days ago on 5 February 2026)
Strong support for the proposition with a minority opposition. There has been no further voting/views expressed since the 12th February. Would appreciate an administrator closing the RfC decisively now as it passed the natural 30 day limit and no further views seem to be incoming.WikiUser4020 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer to leave this unclosed pending WP:ARBMAG. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 08:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Opinion polling for the 2026 Israeli legislative election#c-Braganza-20260206145500-RfC

(Initiated 58 days ago on 6 February 2026)
this discussion essentially concerns how a table displaying polling data should be laid out, particularly how parties should be grouped, if at all. Template has not yet expired, but discussion seems to have died down. I personally think it has gone on long enough, and it would be useful if an outsider could help us move forward. Slomo666 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#RFC: Include LLM usage as a reason to block

(Initiated 14 days ago on 22 March 2026)
Very new and discussion is still somewhat ongoing, but I think this is in WP:SNOW close territory. I count 57 !votes expressing some kind of support against 11 expressing some kind of opposition or procedural issue with the RfC. Athanelar (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:History of the Jews in Algeria#RFC on including perspectives of Heuman and Perrin on the 1963 Nationality Code

(Initiated 31 days ago on 5 March 2026)
Andre🚐 19:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Feb	Mar	Total
CfD	0	50	50
TfD	0	13	13
MfD	0	4	4
FfD	4	35	39
RfD	0	4	4
AfD	0	14	14

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 February 2#Fort Douglas GIs football

(Initiated 123 days ago on 4 December 2025)
GoldRomean (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Fort Douglas GIs football. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 March 21#Template:Authoritarian drift during the second Trump administration sidebar

(Initiated 15 days ago on 21 March 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge proposals

Talk:Ri Su-yong#merging Ri Chol

(Initiated 96 days ago on 30 December 2025)
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done; factual question as to whether these are the same person has yet to be resolved. -- Beland (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre#See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois

(Initiated 222 days ago on 26 August 2025)
- Whether or not {{section link}} should be used in a "See also" section. -- Beland (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, perhaps as said below, the closer can move it out of the archive when they close it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have unarchived this to note that I started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RFC: Piped links in "See also" sections. Perhaps that will resolve the issue more clearly. -- Beland (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested close of that RFC in the above section. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, the broader RFC closed as "no consensus", so this now needs a case-by-case close. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Cleanup Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories 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 Deletion review
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