Wikipedia:Closure requests

WP:CRWP:CR

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, 42, 43

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 182 days are automatically archived by .

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Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.

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.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. This will set appropriate categories and trigger ClueBot III to archive the request. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through.

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrative action review#May 2026 Rollback by Johnbod

Done - (Initiated 45 days ago on 12 May 2026)
Seven days have passed, and there has been no comments in two days. Chess enjoyer (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment was 12 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 12:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by TonyBallioni. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Talk:Quicksilver (Marvel Comics)#Merging Peter Maximoff into this article

(Initiated 108 days ago on 10 March 2026)
This discussion has been open for 3 months and participation has long stabilized. The consensus is not obvious, so an assessment and formal close from an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. ModlordD (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 518#Omniglot

(Initiated 59 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a hard (but unheated) discussion to close. Props to whoever tackles it. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 518#Omniglot after 5 days of inactivity. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Epoch Times#RfC: How should the lead describe The Epoch Times' political orientation?

(Initiated 53 days ago on 4 May 2026)
This talk page discussion has been open for nearly two months (with related conversations dating back to January), and there seems to be a consensus that supports the use of "variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right." A formal close from an uninvolved editor would be greatly appreciated. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Abdul El-Sayed#Request for comment: lead role description

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 May 2026)
RfC template expired. The last !vote was on 5 June. Question about a BLP lead role description. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nikolai_Rimsky-Korsakov#Infobox

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 May 2026)
This was initiated over a month ago, it seems to be getting stragglers but no convincing consensus. Can we get a neutral third-party closer here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbarbarty (talk • contribs) 18:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RFC: How should the IAGS be described in body of the article?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 14 May 2026)
RfC template expired. Discussion is ripe for closure. There haven't been any new comments for the past six days. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: update Democracy Now! from WP:MREL to WP:GENREL?

(Initiated 42 days ago on 15 May 2026)
Discussion has slowed and is ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Restore Britain#Request for Comment: Political Position

(Initiated 27 days ago on 30 May 2026)
Not an urgent need to be closed, but discussion seems to have stagnated and no new arguments are coming forth. Whilst the RfC itself hasn't been open particularly long, it is a glorified continuation of Talk:Restore Britain#Political position, a non-RfC discussion that was closed in order to open the RfC. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to bump this closure request, comments are getting sparser still, with even fewer unique arguments. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 07:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 213#Should we allow stewards to view deleted pages for non-steward roles?

Done - (Initiated 24 days ago on 2 June 2026)
Archived, but should be pretty quick; there's not a lot to read. Since it's a proposed policy change, this should ideally get a formal close. Toadspike [Talk] 19:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived and

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Doctor Who#Request for comment

(Initiated 14 days ago on 12 June 2026)
Discussion on proposed infobox change, with potential to set a precedent for other television series articles, has been exhausted with no clear consensus, so an assessment/closure from a uninvolved editor would be beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U-Mos (talk • contribs) 06:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	1	8	92	54	155
TfD	0	1	0	6	7
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	3	55	38	96
RfD	0	0	2	100	102
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_May_23#Category:Children_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain

(Initiated 133 days ago on 13 February 2026)
There is also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_March_30#Category:Children_of_prime_ministers_of_Great_Britain. The two discussions are overlapping or complementary. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same discussion that's just been relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. One nomination starts with William Petty, the other with Margaret Thatcher. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-uh. Look just above Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:Children of prime ministers of the United Kingdom (with the Iron Lady) to find the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 March 30#Category:Children of prime ministers of Great Britain relist. One is a UK list, and the other is a GB list. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 April 13#Medal templates 2

(Initiated 74 days ago on 13 April 2026)
Most of the usual TfD closers are involved and the discussion is getting quite old. Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 British cabinet reshuffle

(Initiated 15 days ago on 11 June 2026)
This discussion was last relisted less than seven days ago but may be in need of a WP:SNOW closure as there seems to be enough responses to determine consensus and responses are not coming in as frequently as they may have previously. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 12#Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

(Initiated 14 days ago on 12 June 2026)
Discussion got moved. – KaijuEditor (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opening Round (2nd nomination)

(Initiated 14 days ago on 12 June 2026)
A second nomination has garnered more participation after I notified WP:College basketball. This time, a clear consensus has been established against the existence of the article. There was minor differences in whether to merge + redirect or delete this article entirely, and although I originally promoted merging/redirecting, I agree now with the two editors who proposed deletion, as "Opening Round" is way too broad and general of a phrase that a disambiguation page would likely not be able to fully satisfy all uses. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 June 18#Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic film prose

(Initiated 8 days ago on 18 June 2026)
Requesting admin closure on this TfD. I feel the discussion may have run its course, and as this comment in particular points out, due to the nature and widespread (across film articles) use of these templates, the TfD may be attracting a disproportionate number of "Keep" !votes from editors who are comfortable with the template and consequently wish to retain it without a full understanding of or consideration for why other editors find their use problematic...or, put more bluntly, editors who are less familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be !voting "WP:ILIKEIT the way it is" without familiarizing themselves with the arguments in favor of deleting or at least auto-substituting the templates. Indeed, many of the !votes don't even address the possibility of auto-substitution that was raised in the opening remarks. Thank you for your review! DonIago (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Merge proposals

Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading

Requested moves

Talk:2026 Labour Party leadership crisis#Requested move 22 June 2026

Done - (Initiated 4 days ago on 22 June 2026)
This discussion has not yet been open for more than seven days but is gaining many responses quickly so may be heading for a WP:SNOW closure soon. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2007 Labour Party leadership election (UK)#Requested move 26 June 2026

(Initiated 0 days ago on 26 June 2026)
This discussion has received a satisfactory amount of participation and seems like it has enough WP:CONSENSUS to receive a WP:SNOW closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_46#Conference_finals_mvp

(Initiated 760 days ago on 27 May 2024)
– The issue at hand is the propriety of including a new (2022) award in the infobox. Oddly a consensus building discussion was held in the archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_46#Conference_finals_mvp, with other interest posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Conference_Finals_MVP (which directs discussants to the archive discussion) and more recently at Talk:Jalen_Brunson#Request_to_add_2026_Eastern_Conference_Finals_MVP_to_Infobox/Career_Highlights. Although the count seems to be 10 in favor and 4 opposed, edit reversions still seem to be the consensus rather than enacting this seeming consensus. Last comments seem to be June 5, 2024.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

- I admit, I was confused. The discussion page currently points to the archive, but the archive is 2 years old. The discussion was not held in the archive, but the consensus is there.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania#Splitting proposal

(Initiated 240 days ago on 29 October 2025)
No replies for over two months. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests/Archive 5#RFC: Reza Pahlavi as "Lead figure" in the infobox

(Initiated 131 days ago on 15 February 2026)
Discussion has ended.VR 21:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 41#Make TheGamer's situational over "generally reliable"

(Initiated 96 days ago on 22 March 2026)
Majority of the lengthy discussion occurred between 22-30 March with 2 additional comments in April (it has been a few days since the last comment). Given the range of views, a formal close would be helpful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a resurgence of discussion in May 2026. While it has just been auto-moved to the archive, a formal closure would be useful in updating TheGamer's entry in the project's list of sources. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Split how-to

(Initiated 76 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Basis of the Zionist claim to Palestine

(Initiated 72 days ago on 15 April 2026)
– relisting this due to possible confusion before as to whether a similar RfC was open. Rfc is now definitely closed. We want to know if sources support a statement... Slava570 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is closed, but the discussion is continuing and new sources are being presented. The discussion has moved to Talk:Zionism and the latest comments in that discussion are from a few minutes ago, including users (eg myself) presenting novel sources[1].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC turned into a regular discussion that seems to have ended. Is it possible to close both of these together? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	AI Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Splits Moves Protection Batch Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames Report violations Requests for comment Request rename Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards