Wikipedia:Closure requests
Use this closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to close discussions if consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. changes to policies or guidelines).
- Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.
- Just implement the decision!
- Do not post here to rush the closure.
- 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.
- Write 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.
- Uninvolved non-admins may close most discussions.
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.
Unregistered editors may not close discussions, and non-admins may not make closes they are unable to implement. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins.
Technical instructions for closers |
|---|
|
You can append |
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]- 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 article mergers § Articles currently being merged
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits § Articles currently being split
Administrative discussions
[edit](Initiated 88 days ago on 19 August 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Suggestion: archive as as appears stale? Even if there was consensus back in August for a TBAN as a preventative measure (which I'm not convinced of), I'm not seeing continued issues that justifies a finger-wagging close either. Since the discussion, I'm also not seeing any issues with CSGinger14 that surfaced on TP either, only this interaction between proposer and CSGinger14. I do think this should have been closed two months ago though. @Voorts are you still desiring a close here? CNCin solidarity (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 17 September 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 02:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 days ago on 29 October 2026)
I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review and close this discussion. Thank you. MrGerLib (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit]Talk:Hindu American Foundation#RFC: How should the Hindu American Foundation be characterized in the opening sentence of the lead?
[edit](Initiated 52 days ago on 24 September 2026)
Been going on for a bit, a close would help. Sorry for the chaotic mess its become. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 September 2026)
Has been a month, discussion has died down now. CNCin solidarity (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should templates containing article body content be allowed?
[edit](Initiated 24 days ago on 22 October 2026)
– Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should templates containing article body content be allowed? hasn't had comments since Friday. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 12:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 23 days ago on 23 October 2026)
Discussion seems to have run its course. Since it's a big question with a lot of potential effects, any closer should be very careful in assessing consensus here. Athanelar (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Request for comment on whether Middle-earth character articles should have lead images
[edit](Initiated 21 days ago on 25 October 2026)
It seems the discussion has run its course, although it is not clear if a consensus has been achieved. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2026)
Has ten subquestions. It has only been open two weeks, but SNOW may be suitable for some of the questions, allowing editor attention to focus on the more contentious ones. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 2 November 2026)
Has ten subquestions. It has only been open 11 days, but SNOW may be suitable for some of the questions, allowing editor attention to focus on the more contentious ones. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
- I went ahead and closed Q7, Q9, and Q10 since I felt that the consensus was clear on those questions. There might be other questions ready for a close after skimming some of the !votes, but considering that the RFC is 11 days old as of this comment, and that there is active !voting going on, I'd rather wait another week or two before making more closures just to be safe. If anyone objects to any of these closures, please let me know and I am happy to revert the ones in question. Gramix13 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]XfD discussions
[edit]| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 4 | 15 | 31 | 28 | 78 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 7 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 38 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 52 | 59 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 25 |
(Initiated 137 days ago on 1 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 15:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:43, 5 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 114 days ago on 24 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 15:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted today by User:Explicit. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 September 26#Uncontainerize American people of Scottish descent and American people of Welsh descent
[edit](Initiated 88 days ago on 19 August 2026)
The discussion that started this CFD has already been archived, so it would be nice to get closure on this as well. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Chess enjoyer, discussion link is broken. Would you mind listing it separately if you’d like a close there? In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 02:34, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- I fixed the link, @Iseult, but I don't think that talk page discussion needs a formal close. Sorry if I accidentally implied otherwise. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 19 October 2026)
As recommended in discusson, list at CR. CNCin solidarity (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 32 days ago on 14 October 2026)
Fairly long discussion with multiple alternatives assessed. Relisted once nearly three weeks ago, on October 25. If you think another relist will be helpful, please leave a relisting comment. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 20 October 2026)
This discussion was last relisted 10 days ago and I don't think we are any closer to forming WP:CONSENSUS. This discussion has been relisted twice and it should not be relisted again without a good reason per WP:RELIST. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 November 2026)
Admin closer needed (I think) because of move protection. This is my first CR for a move, so please let me know if I did it wrong. Dw31415 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit]Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 58#HIP 99770 b: repeated NOR/SYNTH in recent lead description edits
[edit](Initiated 113 days ago on 25 July 2026)
The classification question for HIP 99770 b (planet vs. a “planet or brown dwarf” hedge) was discussed in July-August 2026 at WP:NORN (post 1) and WP:NPOVN (post 2). The filings were left up for weeks for other editors to offer comments.
Every editor who commented -- other than the editor who added the material -- agreed that the added material ("planet *or* brown dwarf") was WP:SYNTH. One of the uninvolved editors then closed post 2 (a non-admin closure), referencing post 1 and reverted the added SYNTH materials on HIP 99770 b. Both discussions have since been archived.
Two months later (i.e. yesterday), the editor party to the original dispute has now reinstated material identified by others as SYNTH, arguing among other things that the uninvolved editor was not in fact uninvolved since he offered an evaluation on whether this material was SYNTH based on the disputing parties' arguments and others' comments.
To resolve this cleanly, I’m requesting an uninvolved editor review the archived NORN and NPOVN discussions and, if they agree it is warranted, formally close these discussions.
I’m not re-arguing the merits here; the full discussion is at the links above. A formal, clearly uninvolved close would settle both the sourcing question and the procedural concern that has been raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Also at AN. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 19:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- The AN complaint has been closed with a warning. -- Beland (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
- The linked discussion was archived. More recent discussion can be found at Talk:HIP_99770_b. I assume the present closing request expired? fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 102 days ago on 5 August 2026)
Substantive discussion seems to be coming to a natural conclusion, while no other new comments are very productive in helping us come to a consensus. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 October 2026)
The mythical miscellaneous merge discussion in need of a close. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 18 October 2026)
For purposes of the Foundation potentially looking into this, it would be helpful for it to have a formal close. Sdkb‑WMF talk 22:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 19 October 2026)
This discussion has about 110 comments so is well-attended with various opinions and is ripe for closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Wikitext instructions, edit filter, bot restoration, or something else?
[edit](Initiated 26 days ago on 20 October 2026)
Seems like there's consensus to implement one or both of the options, discussion has died down. Tenshi! (Talk page) 10:35, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 23 days ago on 22 October 2026)
The last comment was more than 12 days ago and the discussion has been well-attended so I think everyone who has a strong opinion on this matter has already responded meaning this discussion is ripe for closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 October 2026)
Nobody takes the initiative to close the discussion. Consensus seems clear (with 2:1 votes), with significant participation (~ 60 comments), and declining votes over time. I can't close it because I'm the OP. fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
- Actually as an involved editor, you can close it as WP:SPLITCLOSE says
Any user, including the user who first proposed the split, may close the discussion and move forward with the split
. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)- Done! fgnievinski (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, the full quote has caveats:
- Any user, including the user who first proposed the split, may close the discussion and move forward with the split if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent [sic., consensus] to split.
- @Qwerty123M: would you mind closing the discussion, please? fgnievinski (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
- After my earlier confusion in whether the discussion should be closed, I don't feel confident that it is the right thing to do, although you probably assessed consensus as well as a closer would so I would just copy and paste that statement. The guideline we are referencing says that involved users should only close an
uncontroversial
discussion, I don't want to think this proposal is very controversial, but there have been some oppose votes so far. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2026 (UTC)- OK, then I'll wait for an uninvolved closer, please. fgnievinski (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
- After my earlier confusion in whether the discussion should be closed, I don't feel confident that it is the right thing to do, although you probably assessed consensus as well as a closer would so I would just copy and paste that statement. The guideline we are referencing says that involved users should only close an