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. Sections older than 182 days may be auto-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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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 12 days ago on 9 December 2025) Although it's only been 6 days as of posting this request, there have been many responses now, and from what I can determine, there's either no consensus, or a general consensus against a CBAN on the reported editor. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's been archived by now, and I don't think anyone looking back at that thread would need a formal close saying "consensus against". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 131 days ago on 12 August 2025) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205 § LLM/AI generated proposals? and its subsections? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be closed. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked @Newslinger for requesting this initially, but wanted to add my support and a request that the question of WP:LLMDISCLOSE being made policy which was suggested also be considered in the close if possible. My hope is that there was enough support for that to avoid the need for a further RFC. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly doing. -- Beland (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! The gift of having a conversation I'm involved with closed would be appreciated in lieu of barnstars or flowers. I declined to make an immediate change to WP:LLMDISCLOSE as it was asserted this was a pre-discussion only, and that a future discussion was needed to sort through the details of implementation. (And there were competing proposals.) -- Beland (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 93 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]

(Initiated 60 days ago on 21 October 2025) Decision has mostly quieted down, very split opinions. May require a bartender's close. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poking this. Big, important discussion, ripe for closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that several participants object to using bartender's close here. Also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Amending_administrator_recall was started after this RFC started, and closed before. So it might be pertinent additional background for the closer. Soni (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 18 November 2025) Has been a month. CNC (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 18 November 2025) Discussion has died down after a month. Natg 19 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 17 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 58 days ago on 23 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 29 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 30 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 47 days ago on 4 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 6 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 7 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 42 days ago on 8 November 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 November 2025) --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC) No activity since December 4. Could be relisted for this month. I am also one of the participants. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 19 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]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 December 2025) Will affect more than 8,000 pages. Some1 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -- Beland (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 28 days ago on 22 November 2025) More than 7 days have passed, discussion slowed down. FaviFake (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 6 days ago on 14 December 2025) TarnishedPath^talk 00:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 116 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]

(Initiated 9 days ago on 11 December 2025) It's been a week, and discussion seems to have stopped. Feel free to move this if I'm in the wrong section. Chess enjoyer (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]