Wikipedia:Closure requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 May 2023); 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 and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. 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}}.

Other areas tracking old discussions[edit]

Administrative discussions[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MaranoFan making false accusations of stalking, bad faith, and malicious intent[edit]

Note: now located in the AN/I archive. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Initiated 21 days ago on 18 May 2023) Any admin can settle this, it is SNOWing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan. starship.paint (exalt) 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done archived discussions are not usually closed. Lightoil (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Titus Gold - Civil POV Pushing and Disruptive Editing. Possible_Sock_Puppetry[edit]

(Initiated 6 days ago on 2 June 2023) This has been open 72 hours. Discussion has ceased. I'll leave admins to determine the consensus, but note that no-one has argued against some action. Many thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Closed by Extraordinary Writ ping @Sirfurboy: Lightoil (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Requests for comment[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Village pump (WMF)#RFC: Making WP:VP (WMF) more like WP:AC/N[edit]

(Initiated 36 days ago on 2 May 2023) Should be a simple close. –MJLTalk 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:Infobox legislative election#RFC: outgoing and elected MPs[edit]

(Initiated 33 days ago on 6 May 2023) It's been a month since the start of the RFC, now we need a formal closure to formalize the consensus reached in the discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Initiated 27 days ago on 11 May 2023) There's clearly a consensus, but activitity has died down and no one uninvolved has commented on the RfC since. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Chicago CRED#RfC - Inclusion of Opera about this organisation being mentioned on this page[edit]

(Initiated 19 days ago on 20 May 2023) While there's probably a consensus and activity has died down, there's a dissenter so I don't think this is obvious enough for me, an involved, to close. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Deletion discussions[edit]

XFD backlog
V Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total
CfD 4 2 50 182 0 238
TfD 0 0 0 3 0 3
MfD 0 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 0 0 0 0
RfD 0 0 0 25 0 25
AfD 0 0 0 0 0 0


(Initiated 123 days ago on 4 February 2023) Very complicated CfD with many wall of text posts. Relisted twice, and no participation since March 7. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think this should be closed yet because the discussion simply isn't over yet, per the comment added on 9 April - it's just happening on different pages. Closing this discussion for either keep or delete would create a massive mess of the subcategories that needs to be worked out first before this discussion can be closed. It's unusual for an XfD to go on for so long, yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be closed prematurely. casualdejekyll 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests[edit]

Talk:City of Lover#Merger proposal with Lover (Live from Paris)[edit]

(Initiated 96 days ago on 4 March 2023) A merge proposal approaching no new comments in one month. Heartfox (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Bob Morley & Arryn_Zech[edit]

(Initiated 52 days ago on 17 April 2023) - Discussion pretty much ran its course, would like a closure. Few days ago there was another side discussion about if their was consensus to remove the accusations, should we still be using sources that have the accusations in the title. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know why is this discussion still going on. Everything is just turning around in circles anyway. And they started again today, without ANYTHING new in mind. Kizo2703 (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is referring to my comment seeking a continuation of the discussion and, possibly, an RFC. I'm new to the discussion, and I thought I'd brought up new/fair points, but Kizo apparently disagrees. I don' think this is the appropriate place to have a conversation on the merits of closure, so I'll let my comment there speak for itself.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Monarchy of Antigua and Barbuda#Merge Discussion[edit]

(Initiated 28 days ago on 11 May 2023) Merge discussion for Republicanism in Antigua and Barbuda. Discussion seems to have run its course. Not clear enough for an involved close. Would appreciate a neutral close please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:Infobox aircraft#Discussion related to Infobox aircraft engine and parameters:[edit]

(Initiated 27 days ago on 11 May 2023) It appears that there won't be any more comments, and I assume that there are enough discussion to draw conclusions for both sub-discussions. Prarambh20 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Initiated 26 days ago on 13 May 2023) Latest comment: 5 days ago, 8 comments, 8 people in discussion. Independent closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Initiated 13 days ago on 26 May 2023) The discussion is disputed but seems to have ended, and as I'm an involved editor I can't close. If someone would mind doing that I'd be grateful, thanks.A.D.Hope (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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