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.

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

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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. Articles for 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 advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• 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

(Initiated 123 days ago on 11 March 2025) No activity since late March, although the template wasn't properly transcluded, meaning it wasn't listed with other RfCs. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Working GoldRomean (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRomean: Are you still working on this? If not, I could have a look. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste - thanks for the reminder! Planning on getting this done tomorrow, but you’re free to jump in if you want too. GoldRomean (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you take this one if you want :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 97 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 93 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 78 days ago on 25 April 2025) Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdkb (talk • contribs) 05:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}} not enough participation for closure yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: There are six participants, a majority of whom agree on a set of changes. What additional participation are you seeking before implementing the prevailing agreement? Sdkb ^talk 16:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, of the six participants, three were in favour with reasoning, two were against with reasoning, and one seems to be in favour without reasoning. That is not consensus to change. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 76 days ago on 26 April 2025) Expired RfC with no comments in over a month and fairly light involvement to start with. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 75 days ago on 28 April 2025) RFC tag expired some time ago and discussion has slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 59 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 14 June 2025) Last comment was two weeks ago. Some1 (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 21 days ago on 20 June 2025) No recent !votes, ready for closure. WWGB (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Working GoldRomean (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 12 days ago on 29 June 2025) No comments or votes, so I think it's ready for closure. HurricaneEdgar 04:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	0	103	103
TfD	0	1	10	21	32
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	1	3	4
RfD	0	0	9	30	39
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

(Initiated 71 days ago on 1 May 2025) No activity for 1 month. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 June 2025) No activity for coming on 2 weeks now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 21 May 2025) This follows a series of RMs here and at Talk:1925 tri-state tornado and at least one MRV for the 1925 tornado. There was ultimately an AN/I resulting in a tban for the nominator, and there is now a case at ArbCom, where this RM was one among many discussions implicated. This RM has never been relisted in 45 days and the last comment was nearly one month ago. A thoughtful review and close of this RM, preferably by an admin, is appreciated. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]