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 73 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 40 days ago on 16 January 2025) Previous non-admin close was undone at AN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 67 days ago on 19 December 2024) Open for over 2 months, no new comments for about 2 weeks. Grandmaster 09:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Kshatriya#RfC:_Should_we_mention_"Rajputs" _as_most_successful_claimants_of_Kshatriya_status?
[edit](Initiated 59 days ago on 28 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 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)
(Initiated 30 days ago on 25 January 2025) No new discussion in the last two weeks, ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Are_Erin_Reed’s_reposted_blog_pieces_reliable_and_non-SPS_if_republished_by_a_reputable_source_such_as_The_Advocate_or_LA/Wa_Blade?
[edit](Initiated 26 days ago on 30 January 2025) No discussion in 5 days, it'll close automatically in a few days. Seems consensus leaning towards no. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Done- @Bluethricecreamman "Seems consensus leaning towards no."
- Closure requests should be neutral. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#RfC:_Adding_countries_as_supporters_of_Ukraine_to_the_infobox
[edit](Initiated 39 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)
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 | 3 | 21 | 24 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 85 | 92 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode_2: j-l)
[edit](Initiated 60 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)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 30 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 9#Category:International airports by country
[edit](Initiated 24 days ago on 1 February 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 262 days ago on 7 June 2024) Closure is long overdue; no votes or topic discussion since 1 July 2024. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 220 days ago on 19 July 2024) Could an uninvolved editor please assess the merge proposal between Musical form and Song structure, last discussed in August. Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Klbrain, this discussion wandered off all over the place and I don't see that a fruitful discussion was had on whether to merge the two articles. Is a close really required? TarnishedPathtalk 11:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- My view is that a close is always warranted if the discussion has ceased. It may be, of course, that that summary is no consensus (on the merge) with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Done TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Presidencies of Grover Cleveland#Should split into two separate articles for the Cleveland presidencies
[edit](Initiated 76 days ago on 10 December 2024) This discussion has been going on for at least three months and consensus has been reached. Please solve the backlog. AsaQuathern (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_against_use_of_AI_images_in_BLPs_and_medical_articles?
[edit](Initiated 75 days ago on 12 December 2024) Was archived due to inactivity, then unarchived [1]. Please assess whether there is consensus in the discussion for anything at all. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Partly done. A note for closers, whether or not to use AI for images of BLPs has been closed with the answer of "no". The question is currently whether there is a consensus for a total ban. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Chess "The question is currently whether there is a consensus for a total ban."
- That is beyond the scope of the RfC. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Done TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Seeking consensus for Cleveland & Trump presidental photos
[edit](Initiated 30 days ago on 25 January 2025) This is a lengthy discussion as it's spread across a dozen other sections (all since closed, listed and linked). This is a high-traffic page with many new and/or one-time users, (possibly sock & meat puppets as well), and of course edit-warring. Went the informal route to try and keep it as simple as possible. It's now been more than two weeks, would like to see (hopefully) an admin or experienced editor assess and close this. Thanks - \\'cԼF 23:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)