Wikipedia:Closure requests
 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
Use the 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 34 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)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1234#Persistent disruptive editing by ~2026-41404-95
[edit](Initiated 31 days ago on 22 August 2026)
Has a proposal that needs closing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1234#Proposal: 1 month block for ~2026-41404-95. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 151 days ago on 24 April 2026)
No comments in several months. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 28 July 2026)
Some discussions on this page have already been closed per WP:SNOW but there are still some more discussions to close under the snowball clause. I don't think every one of them can be closed yet though. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- This was just listed yesterday at WP:CENT and the vast majority of comments have come in since then. I'd say, even if a particular proposal appears to be snowing, closers should wait a few days before hatting it. Sdkb talk 13:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's summer after all. FaviFake (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's now been 30 days since the RfC began, so we are ready for regular (non-SNOW) closes. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 30 July 2026)
comments have long since trailed off. Late surge in comments was from it being mentioned in this discussion. Best of luck. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 217#Should we introduce additional time limits for DYK nominations, in addition to the existing DYKTIMEOUT guidelines?
[edit](Initiated 47 days ago on 6 August 2026)
Last comment was 12 days ago. Someone please put this out of its misery. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 12 August 2026)
FaviFake (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 36 days ago on 18 August 2026)
Consensus has been reached after more than 2 weeks. The discussion has now descended into discussion about editorial conduct and incivility which is clogging up the Talk page and is not contributing anything positive to the discussion or to improvement of the article. Whynotlol2 15:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's a good idea. There does not seem to be a clear enough consensus to warrant an early close of the RfC. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 16:40, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. FaviFake (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Currently, there are 12 votes for option B, 9 for neither, and 5 for option A. Despite the apparent lack of consensus, the page was quietly edited to option B several days ago, and has not been reverted since. Meanwhile, the Talk page thread has devolved into arguments and name-calling about the definition of racism; I do not think it likely that any further consensus will be reached. Whynotlol2 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- You're welcome to leave it open, of course; I just think it's going to devolve into another 181 comments where users do nothing but argue about the definition of racism and objective reality. I can't personally see there being any productive consensus being reached at this point. Happy to wait the full 30 days and see what other discourse ensues if that's deemed the best option. Whynotlol2 (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm Not saying that the RfC has not derailed in more than a few places, but no option has a majority and closing early in that situation just doesn't seem to me to be a good way to address that. If disruption gets out of hand I would advise you to remind participants the RfC falls under WP:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence, and to keep the discussion on-track. Hatting derailments could also be considered.
- As for the quiet edit inappropriately changing the article to one of the options in the RfC, I've reverted it for not having an established consensus to include it. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 17:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! Will do. Whynotlol2 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- This RfC has now been open for over 30 days, with the last comment 5 days ago. Closure would be greatly appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 August 2026)
– Few comments, the last four days ago. Joe vom Titan (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- RfCs usually don't last only 6 days. FaviFake (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 2 September 2026)
Multiple requests for early closure as the only controversial matter (whether the 30-day limit is rigid) was resolved. FaviFake (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion stopped completely 5 days ago, as predicted. FaviFake (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 9 September 2026)
Discussion has slowed, so uninvolved closer may be needed ASAP. George Ho (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 6 days ago on 16 September 2026)
Discussion has a more or less consensus; it has also been turned into WP:PAs by WP:TEMP users, so uninvolved closer may be needed ASAP. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]
XfD discussions
[edit]| V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 66 | 118 | 57 | 241 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 49 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 31 | 20 | 51 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 34 | 34 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 70 | 70 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 8 days ago on 15 September 2026)
This discussion has received a landslide of supportive responses, this means that the discussion may need to be closed under the snowball clause. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think this is an appropriate SNOW close for a number of reasons. This is a repeat of an identical RM five months ago and there has been activity over the last 24–48 hours, including some dissenting !votes and some participants who are moving the discussion forward but have not (yet?) expressed a firm opinion. Let it play out. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion has reached the seven day mark now so it requires closure or relisting. On the numbers alone, it looks like there are more support votes. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- I will note that another editor has decided to relist it and, helpfully, stated their reasoning in the discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion has reached the seven day mark now so it requires closure or relisting. On the numbers alone, it looks like there are more support votes. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 88 days ago on 26 June 2026)
- It's been three weeks since the last !vote Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 82 days ago on 3 July 2026)
I think there can be a consensus to this discussion, but that should be evaluated by an independent observer. If necessary/no consensus is found I will start a formal RfC but I'd like to avoid an RfC is necessary as it is costly. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 7 July 2026)
- I think this would benefit from a closure, it was a pretty concrete and relatively simple proposal. FaviFake (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 27 August 2026)
– It looks like we may have some consensus but could someone please close this move discussion? It's been awhile since the last !vote. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
- This request isn't appropriate. As numerous people in that discussion pointed out, that wasn't a proper WP:RM, people just started bolding their comments. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 28 August 2026)
Discussion has been open for two weeks; only one new !vote in the past week. Malerisch (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 4 September 2026)
As an involved participant, I am requesting a formal, impartial review and closing, considering this is a contentious matter and has not elicited any new !votes in a week and has devolved into editors of differing viewpoints rehashing their rationale without much movement either way. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Informal discussion like this aren't usually closed at RSN, maybe a formal RFC would be a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)