Wikipedia:Closure requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Closure requests noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.


Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 9 July 2022); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.


If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. A helper script is available to make listing discussions easier.

If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

3 billiard ball.svg

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have. Closers who want to discuss their evaluation of consensus while preparing for a close may use WP:Discussions for discussion.

A request for comment from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure for details.

To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

Requests for closure[edit]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344#JIP[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 June 2022) Nobody's added anything for a week, so it's time to wrap this up. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this one was also archived without closure, which is probably fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)[edit]

(Initiated 47 days ago on 21 June 2022) I really don't think it's fair to the appellant for a ban appeal to remain open for so long, regardless of the outcome (disclaimer: I participated) --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Editor behavior[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 4 July 2022) It was archived without closure or administrative resolution. The concern was brought up again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: reported by User:Yae4 (Result: ) on 23 July 2022. (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Epiphyllumlover_additions_of_polygamist_information[edit]

(Initiated 10 days ago on 28 July 2022) A consensus for an American politics TBAN has been reached. Needs closure and implementation. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the above comment, the discussion has widened to include a community-imposed siteban proposal. In a few hours, the discussion will have run the minimum 72 hours recommended by WP:CBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Requests for comment[edit]

Talk:Italian Social Movement#RFC: Italian Social Movement political position[edit]

(Initiated 105 days ago on 24 April 2022) RFC tag expired two days ago, and discussion has stopped since weeks, so it needs a formal closure. Already the OP took initiative and decided the RFC result without a proper closure, and they might try to do this again soon. Yakme (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This type of allusions (to which the user is not new) seems to me inappropriate and rather out of place. Until now there was a clear consensus for one of the three options, after two months of Rfc I limited myself to realizing the result of the Rfc, it was my prerogative. However, another user intervened today (after the expiration of the RFC, to tell the truth) and this slightly called into question the balance of consensus. Perhaps the best solution would be to further extend the RFC and seek the opinion of other users, to have a more defined result.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, I voted for the option you favor, so I am sort of shooting myself in the foot here, but your methods of working here are totally unacceptable. (1) A 5–3 majority is not automatically a proof of consensus, let alone proof of "clear" consensus; (2) it was not your "prerogative" to "realize" the result of the RfC by yourself and also act on it by editing the page accordingly; (3) I don't think it's forbidden for users to give their opinions after the expiration of the RfC, their opinion is still valid; (4) I am not against extending the RFC, however this has already gone for more than 2 months. Yakme (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me it is quite irrelevant if you consider "unacceptable" a prerogative provided by the rules of Wikipedia. You are free to challenge my interpretation of the result and request closure from an uninvolved user, but not to contest prerogatives explicitly provided by Wikipedia itself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You simply do not have the "prerogative" to determine a non-trivial result of an RFC started by you, period. Anyway let's wait for a proper closure. Yakme (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a month of renewed discussion, which has by now simmered down to silence, it might be time to indeed close this down. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon#RfC on category inclusion/exclusion[edit]

(Initiated 96 days ago on 3 May 2022) No new comments since 1 June. Clear majority favoring the inclusion of the category, with a minority dominated by editors that appear to be in favor of looking at the Book of Mormon as a factual historical document. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here. Nice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC about lists of inhabitants of a certain region by net worth[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 June 2022) Consensus seems to have been reached. No further contributions or comments are being submitted since 6 July 2022. All that remains is the formal closure. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Provincial infoboxes content[edit]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 July 2022) - Been little activity in the last roughly two weeks. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Baseball#Federal League records in the 1914 & 1915 Major League Baseball season pages[edit]

(Initiated 34 days ago on 4 July 2022) - The RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 July 2022) The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 July 2022) The RfC tag has expired. Kpddg (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Greased piglet#RfC on examples[edit]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 13 July 2022) Request for Comment rooted in WP:SYNTH, on whether examples of use should require a reliable source to verify that they are notable examples, or whether editors can search the web and select any examples of its use and cite those directly as examples.

There have been eight (by my count) contributors, but no comments have been added for almost six days, and one of the main contributors has been indefinitely blocked in the meantime, the IP contributor has not edited since, and one contributor commented only on an unasked question.

The issue is quite contentious, and as the outcome would seem to rely on WP:SYNTH interpretation, I favour an uninvolved close please. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would really benefit from a bit more participation, and it's only been open a week. I think letting it ride for now is probably a good call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for looking at it, and thanks for the advice. I've added a request for participation at WP:NORN. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. I took a peek, and with such low participation and so short a time, it's either let it ride, or no consensus. Hopefully the discussion progresses a bit more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Due to the contentious nature of this one, I wondered if we could get an uninvolved close (even if it is 'no consensus') to put it to bed before the automatic bot close due next week.
And just a note: one contributor seems to have misunderstood the question and !votes 'yes' to a question other than the one asked, and there are 'yes' !votes from two different IPs from the same range as the main contributor to the article and geolocating to the same area. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
V May Jun Jul Aug Total
CfD 2 17 110 0 129
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 0 2 0 2
AfD 0 0 22 0 22


(Initiated 183 days ago on 5 February 2022) Keep, delete per WP:TNT, or close as no consensus? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Megan Huntsman[edit]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 7 July 2022) Previous closure was undone. ––FormalDude talk 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers#Merge requests[edit]

(Initiated 375 days ago on 28 July 2021) Major backlog of requests needing closure czar 17:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Reply - Thank you for your post. People are likely to be aware that there is a backlog. You might consider closing some of the simplest discussions with which you are not involved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Not done @Czar: --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think editors are likely to be aware, hence my post. It's a fairly arcane page/process managed mainly by one editor. czar 16:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189#Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFC[edit]

(Initiated 144 days ago on 16 March 2022) Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Proposal to update the project's RS guideline[edit]

(Initiated 137 days ago on 23 March 2022) No comments since May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14#Proposal to update the project's RS guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Nintendo Entertainment System#Proposal to create a separate entry for the Family Computer (Famicom)[edit]

(Initiated 115 days ago on 14 April 2022) No clear consensus has been reached, and with no comments since July 4, one is not likely to happen anytime soon. I have already messaged the editor who submitted the initial request about creating a draft article instead. SmartAn01 (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Proposal: increase unreviewed new page search engine NOINDEX duration[edit]

(Initiated 51 days ago on 17 June 2022) - The folks at Phabricator are requesting a formal close to move forward. I'd encourage the closer to clearly state 1) whether there is consensus for an increase of any kind above the default of 90 days, 2) if there is consensus for a specific number of days (such as 180, 365, indefinite, etc.), and 3) whether this is a local consensus or a site wide consensus. This was advertised at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 190#New page search engine NOINDEX duration for a week or two before being auto archived. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Initiated 43 days ago on 25 June 2022) Open more than two weeks and discussion seems to have tapered off. -- Vaulter 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Discussion briefly revived but the last comment was 5 days ago. It is nearly certainly that anyone who has anything to say has said it at least once. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#How/where/if to include hull-number[edit]

(Initiated 17 days ago on 21 July 2022) Special attention please to the sub-section: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Broader issue, started two days later on 23 July, as proposal itself, and with all subsequent sub-sections included may require separate consensus. Discussion has become a circular debate, with many off-topic comments, and should come to an end. Thank you - wolf 13:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading[edit]