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 .

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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.

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

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

Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205#LLM/AI generated proposals?

(Initiated 108 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]

Talk:William_Penn#RFC_on_Infobox_image

(Initiated 92 days ago on 27 August 2025) No new additions for over a month, no clear cut consensus. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 2:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 492#RFC:_Reliability_of_Pirate_Wires

(Initiated 79 days ago on 10 September 2025) Slowing down... also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC tag has now been removed, and there's only been one new comment in the last week and a half. The discussion potentially overlaps with ARBPIA and AP2, so an experienced closer would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been archived to archive 492, please restore to the main page if you close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources

(Initiated 70 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]

Talk:Lee Kuan Yew#RfC (authoritarian in the lead)

(Initiated 53 days ago on 6 October 2025) Discussion within the RFC has died down, with the last comment posted 17 days ago. Personally I find the discussion to be very messy so I don't dare to close this myself. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#RFC on proposed buildings

(Initiated 53 days ago on 6 October 2025) -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Military–industrial_complex#RfC_two_versions_of_a_paragraph

(Initiated 45 days ago on 13 October 2025) Discussion ended a week ago. Uhoj (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)#RFC: Characterization of political views

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 October 2025) !votes have quietened, WP:CT/AP. CNC (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Recall check-in#Recall check-in

(Initiated 38 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]

Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#RfC

(Initiated 34 days ago on 25 October 2025) This RfC, which proposes creating a new guideline, is ready to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: New GA quick fail criterion for AI

(Initiated 32 days ago on 26 October 2025) I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could close this RfC after thirty days have passed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Libel#Wikivoice on companies involved (but not convicted) in genocide

(Initiated 23 days ago on 5 November 2025) I think it's been up long enough for a close to be due. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the discussion was initiated on 6 October while the RfC began on 5 November. CNC (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NOT#RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT: Broad or specific.

(Initiated 18 days ago on 10 November 2025) This has had no activity for over 48 hours and can be closed. I did request that an uninvolved administrator close this due to issues with the previous 'WP:DESTNOT' close, however any close by an experienced uninvolved editor is welcome. Another editor stated that they believed 7 days was long enough. An involved administrator recommended letting the RfC go to archive without a formal close. I am not opposed to either, however I believe a proper close would be the better option for this RfC. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the guidance to let the RfC go to archive. I commented more in the discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✋ @11WB would still like a close so an RfC more likely to gain consensus can be opened. I think it would be appropriate for the requester to withdraw the question but I’d like a more experienced opinion on that. Dw31415 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several options were given, and editors have given their opinions on more than one option. So it appears that the nom should not withdraw. The nom should probably await closure of the RfC. Thank you very much, editor Dw31415, for calling my attention to this on my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	8	53	61
TfD	4	13	17
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	5	5
RfD	0	34	34
AfD	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19#HODL

(Initiated 138 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Rusalkii. Left guide (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025 October 13#Category:Incubi_and_succubi

(Initiated 61 days ago on 28 September 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Defunct/disused/former_railway_stations

(Initiated 49 days ago on 10 October 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles

(Initiated 34 days ago on 25 October 2025) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge proposals

Wikipedia talk:Translation#Merge proposal

(Initiated 679 days ago on 19 January 2024) open for 1 year. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC) (Talk)]] 05:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close this because I'm involved, but interested closers should see User talk:FaviFake#Your closure of Translation merge proposal. I don't see any reason for a formal closure in this case. If something's been open for nearly two years without attracting more discussion, it's moribund. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussions are almost always formally closed and removed from the merge backlog, per WP:M4, especially if they are large and involve a lot of editors, as was the case here. I came across the proposal from the merge backlog. FaviFake (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tendon of Todaro#Feedback from New Page Review process

(Initiated 207 days ago on 5 May 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:ESPN (streaming service)#Merge with WatchESPN

(Initiated 199 days ago on 13 May 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agentic_AI#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 197 days ago on 15 May 2025) Alenoach (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2022 Auckland Council election#Merging local board elections

(Initiated 191 days ago on 21 May 2025) No activity in a month. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fruit slice#Merge proposal

(Initiated 123 days ago on 28 July 2025) FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Covfefe#Merge to Twitter use by Donald Trump

(Initiated 99 days ago on 21 August 2025) FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hurricane Ivan#Proposal to merge Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America and Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Greater Antilles

(Initiated 95 days ago on 24 August 2025) open for 2 months. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alternative medicine#Proposed merge of Functional medicine into Alternative medicine

(Initiated 94 days ago on 25 August 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mar-a-Lago face#Distinction from Republican makeup

(Initiated 62 days ago on 27 September 2025) FaviFake (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip#Merge proposal

(Initiated 37 days ago on 21 October 2025) More than 10 days have passed and the discussion has become stale (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was closed by a non-admin and reverted as badnac, it also broke the page resulting in brief consensus to split out again (restore pre merge version). Experienced closer requested. CNC (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gameplay#Merge Request

(Initiated 37 days ago on 22 October 2025) The discussion is stale with the last comment being weeks ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done FaviFake (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested moves

Talk:Shetland dialect#Requested move 16 October 2025

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 October 2025) — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 23:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:FCSB#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2025

(Initiated 175 days ago on 6 June 2025)

Too much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

probably {{done}} by someone else by now, as it says it is answered and there has been no activity since 25 October Oreocooke (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is not actually. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saint Valentine's Day Massacre/Archive 1#See also - List of organized crime killings in Illinois

(Initiated 94 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]

Talk:Wales Green Party#Welsh independence in the infobox (again)

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 October 2025)

This discussion seems to have ended and I think it will be useful to have an uninvolved closure to determine if there is consensus for Welsh Independence to be included in the Infobox of Wales Green Party as an ideology, consensus against inclusion or no consensus. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#Should_IAR_be_overturned?

(Initiated 37 days ago on 22 October 2025) 268 comments, 103 people in discussion, discussion/!voting has mostly died out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second the motion to close. Editors are now sniping at each other in disagreements about process. The debate on the actual question seems to have finished. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing#Suspect

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 November 2025) Discussion has mostly stalled. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2025 (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	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models 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 Mergers Splits Moves Protection 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 (Requests for comment) 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