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

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are 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 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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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.

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.

• 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

(Initiated 110 days ago on 18 September 2025) Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Iseult ^Δx talk to me 04:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to carry out this close owing to concerns over whether many of the participants are engaging with the primary part of the question and how it might then interact with the policy WP:PRIMARY, but will leave my notes below for whatever unfortunate soul does pick this up. The !vote-count is 22-8-3; 13/22 !votes for option 1 are clear that reliable primary source coverage should by no means be the sole consideration. There's then, considering only !votes, consensus for option 1, weighing other considerations heavily. More broadly, there's concern everywhere over WP:NOTNEWS and applicability of option 1 to current events and crimes. Some other concerns raised included the possibility of harm to people named, the relative unreliability of early reporting, and the general rush to edit Wikipedia when an event of note occurs. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 77 days ago on 21 October 2025) Rescinded previous close, someone else should take a look at this. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: There is a parrelel/related RfC at Admin recall petition signature threshold & length that was initiated based on this close. CNC (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I already did some counting and analysis in that followup RFC, I wrote my analysis up in more detail at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Recall check-in#Some attempted analysis. Note I !voted in the check-in and my analysis there should not be taken as an attempt at a close; I just hope it might be helpful for whoever does decide to take it on. Anomie⚔ 15:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenLipstickLesbian, just letting you know about this incase you didn't see it. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes Thanks for the ping! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 20:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to mop this up if someone mops up the BLP coverage RFC above. -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beland, I asked if there is any objection to a no-consensus close. I draw your attention to it so that any replies might inform your next steps. Dw31415 (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 18 November 2025) Has been a month. CNC (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502#RFC: Olympedia. Please restore from the archive if you close the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 49 days ago on 18 November 2025) Discussion has died down after a month. Natg 19 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 26 November 2025) I closed the RfC on 26 December, a month after the RfC started; however, the closure received pushback. Whoever is WP:UNINVOLVED in the case and is reading this, please first decide whether you think the current closure is appropriate; if not, you have my permission to remove it as long as the rules are being followed. After doing so, please create your own closure. You can also add onto my closure if you agree with the basics of it but think it needs more information. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is so contentious, there could also be farther discussion requested before making any changes. Wikieditor662 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor662: I suggest you start a RfC closure review request at WP:AN. M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done! Wikieditor662 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton, would you please confirm: 662 should take their own closure to AN? I would expect they should revert it or let someone else take it to AN. I would also expect that as the nom, they should revert their own close if there is pushback that the result is not obvious. Dw31415 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for them to revert their own close. M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RfC has been re-opened for now. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 November 2025) Discussion has substantially stalled after 3 weeks. CamAnders (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 November 2025) RFC template expired. Please see Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_12#RfC_on_first_sentence for previous RFC on the same topic and note the existence of a moratorium discussion at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Moratorium_proposal. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025) Technically not an RfC, but deserves a close so the result can be implemented. May require a little bartendering of the wording. Listing here so this doesn't get forgotten. Toadspike [Talk] 08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs a discussion about the use of AI to remove watermarks, signatures and other marks of ownership. I suggest that this gets specific attention from the community in order to produce a robust, clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall You are welcome to advertise this more widely. In theory it only serves to implement the result of a previous RfC, but the discussion has sprawled in a way that makes this more complicated. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm reluctant to be seen to participate in the RfC by advertising it, in case the community feels it makes me involved, which would limit my ability to close RfCs about AI images in the future. I'd prefer just to suggest it here if that's OK.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...if anything, suggesting topics for discussion makes you far more involved than posting a neutral notification of a discussion on relevant noticeboards or talk pages (though I now see that my suggestion doesn't address your suggestion). Since you have an opinion on this, you could leave the closing to someone else – there will always be another closer. Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See those hundred-plus day-old closure requests up there? I'm involved.  :)—S Marshall T/C 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025)

I would close this as "No consensus, take on case-by-case basis" but I'm very involved. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

XFD backlog

• v
• t
• e

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	3	89	0	92
TfD	0	0	18	0	18
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	2	10	0	12
RfD	0	0	44	0	44
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

(Initiated 55 days ago on 12 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 54 days ago on 13 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 14 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 53 days ago on 14 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 17 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 19 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 45 days ago on 22 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 23 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 23 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:50, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 23 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:32, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 25 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 25 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_25#College_cross_country_coaches_in_the_United_States
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 4 - most discussions there
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_7#Category:Winnipeg Fury
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_9#Category:Baltimore Skipjacks
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 9#1 article categories in Category:College men's track and field athletes in Alabama
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 10#College men's soccer coaches in Illinois small categories
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 11#Category:College men's soccer players in Kansas
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 12#Category:Roosevelt Lakers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#Drury Panthers women's swimmers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 17#CSU Pueblo ThunderWolves coaches
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 19#Coker University men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Brevard Tornados
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Category:Truman Falcons men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Cowley Tigers
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Queens Royals
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Cincinatti State Surge men's soccer players
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#NDSCS Wildcats
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#ASA Miami Silver Storm
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 20#Embry–Riddle Eagles men's soccer
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 25#Richland College Thunderducks men's soccer players

Oldest (Initiated 42 days ago on 25 November 2025). These are all essentially the same discussion, with the same fundamental dispute, and I just don't want to deal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 26 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 41 days ago on 26 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 1 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 1 December 2025) – This discussion has actually been open since December 1; and it has been dormant since December 13. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:12, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on Dec. 18 by Jay. -- Beland (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Participants were at complete opposites and I thought one or two !votes could tip the discussion towards one side. Jay 💬 06:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 1 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 2 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...}

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 3 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...}

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 4 December 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 14 days ago on 23 December 2025) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notification only happened on 2 January; giving this 7 days from then. -- Beland (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 13 days ago on 24 December 2025) Various old TfDs, mostly regarding editnotices. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All done. -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 20 December 2025) Doeze (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been relisted on 4 January by Jeffrey34555. TarnishedPath^talk 03:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This request is ripe for an OTHEROPTIONS close; however, since it's been relisted, it can go for a few more days to see if consensus for a new title can be achieved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 15 days ago on 22 December 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 13:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor Vestrian24Bio. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 11:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 133 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]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 15 November 2025) - The question is whether this version achieved consensus in the discussion or not. The two changes (adding most recent sales data and adjustment of unclear/WP:OR wording) have been disputed for some time. The latter is also a follow-up adjustment to the recently closed RfC, in case that is relevant to the closer. A WP:30 editor concluded that consensus was reached, but that decision is not accepted, which is why a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is needed. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]