Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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 consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. Articles for 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. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through and Template:tlx ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• 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 mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#RfC: Lead & reception prose established at DRN

(Initiated 124 days ago on 24 January 2025) Last comment made in February 2025 & it was moved to the archive by a bot on 14 March 2025. Article has been subject to a lot of edit warring & is back under a full lock. I think it would be helpful to have this formally closed (& temporarily restored to the talk page) as there is a discussion about if a RfC is needed for other aspects of the article including the lead. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#RFC:_Focus_of_Autism_Article

(Initiated 92 days ago on 25 February 2025) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus or close this as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#RFC:_Lede_Section_of_Autism

(Initiated 92 days ago on 25 February 2025) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus or close this as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on the Political Practice and Rhetoric section

(Initiated 75 days ago on 14 March 2025) RfC tag expired two weeks after last !vote. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

(Initiated 70 days ago on 19 March 2025) RFC on a ARBPIA related organisation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Note for closer: Several accounts in this discussion were affected by recent ArbCom actions (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_misconduct_in_Palestine–Israel_topic_area_II) and not all comments by blocked editors have been marked as such. I strongly recommend installing a script to mark blocked users before diving into this. Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with @Toadspike Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This was now archived and de-archived, and is still in need of closure. There might be a reasonable argument for waiting for the outcome of the current motion as well, but I’m not sure what the best course of action is. FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to note the motion was closed without being adopted, and has been archived -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Which motion? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The one linked directly above your comment (archived), closed with no action. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

What does this mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

There was a ton of engagement with this RfC, surely it has enough for a formal closure with recommendations. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested is just pointing out that a motion which would've (topic-)banned some editors who contributed to the RfC was closed without banning the aforementioned editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Archived again, please restore to the noticeboard if you close the discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Really needs a formal close soon and an update for the RfC list. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen a close take this long in a while. Anything we can do? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC on date ranges in meteorological event titles

(Initiated 67 days ago on 22 March 2025) RFC expired, please close. 2600:387:15:5313:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Urdu#RfC on the collocation Modern Standard Urdu

(Initiated 60 days ago on 29 March 2025) Should be easy enough a close that it arguably doesn't even need to be. But given that the subject area is contentious, a formal closure would be nice and will possibly prevent future disputes about the RFC's conclusions. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles

(Initiated 54 days ago on 4 April 2025) Last top-level comment was over a week ago. RFC tag has expired. Needs uninvolved editor to close this. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Copts#RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent

(Initiated 53 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

(Initiated 53 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Iqrit#RfC

(Initiated 48 days ago on 9 April 2025) RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris

(Initiated 43 days ago on 15 April 2025) No new comments for a week. Lazman321 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead

(Initiated 41 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Last comment on 5 May 2025 (12 days ago) & RfC tag expired; also a related & broader non-RfC discussion was just started (15 May) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Superscript and subscript typography guideline

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 April 2025) – Last comment from 27 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon_Casas#Request_for_Comment:_Subject_lead_label_Catalan_or_Spanish?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 25 April 2025) - RfC was opened about a month ago and has stabilized. While the consensus of the RfC seems obvious, a closure with a definitive statement by a neutral editor would be useful. The labeling question pertains to a large number of articles with Catalan subjects. This and other similar RfCs and discussions will be used as a precedent for such articles. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Debrief

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 May 2025) - There was a robust discussion but the last !vote was four days ago, and only two !votes in the last ten days. Seems like a fairly straightforward/easy close. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	0	100	100
TfD	0	0	1	3	4
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	1	25	26
RfD	0	0	0	16	16
AfD	0	0	0	16	16

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Module:Citation

(Initiated 73 days ago on 16 March 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Enemies list

(Initiated 65 days ago on 24 March 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 7#Potential Tropical Cyclone Nine

(Initiated 60 days ago on 29 March 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 April 5#File:Portrait of Mabel Allington Royds by Ernest Lumsden.jpg

(Initiated 53 days ago on 5 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Explicit. Rusalkii (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 April 20#Rugby union squad navigation templates

(Initiated 45 days ago on 13 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_25#Template:CompUnits

(Initiated 43 days ago on 15 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_18#Flabbiness

(Initiated 40 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_5#Wikipedia:MN

(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done (by which I mean relisted, which was perhaps the coward's way out). Rusalkii (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_4#Historic Palestine

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 April 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Rusalkii (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 18

(Initiated 10 days ago on 18 May 2025) – Please review or relist the discussion about the suspect in the Killing of Austin Metcalf (name omitted for privacy reasons). --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposals

Talk:The Daily Wire#Proposed merge of Mr. Birchum into The Daily Wire

(Initiated 226 days ago on 14 October 2024) The Daily Wire and associated pages are part of a contentious topic area, but this has been discussed for half a year now and the debate should be closed. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 17:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Antisemitism in Australia#Merge proposal

(Initiated 121 days ago on 27 January 2025) Discussion has been open since the end of January and has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

(Initiated 110 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It has now been eleven weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hybrid_warfare#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 45 days ago on 13 April 2025) – No activity in proposal since 16 April, looks ready for a close. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archives/ 1#Proposed merge of Operation Bunyanun Marsoos into 2025 India–Pakistan strikes

(Initiated 18 days ago on 10 May 2025) These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:Riphean_(stage)#Requested_move_1_February_2025

(Initiated 116 days ago on 1 February 2025) Open for 3+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:NFL_Kickoff_Game#Requested_move_21_February_2025

(Initiated 96 days ago on 21 February 2025) Open for almost 3 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Turkish_offensive_in_northern_Syria_(2024–present)#Requested_move_25_February_2025

(Initiated 91 days ago on 25 February 2025) Open for almost 3 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 69 days ago on 20 March 2025) MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

This page is for neutrally requesting closes, not debating the merits of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Overall discussion started on the 20th, but a refresh to consolidate discussion and vote was made a bit later. Involved editor, but seems as though the Option A here has emerged as the narrow consensus here. No new discussion in last 3 days. Still need non-involved editor/admin to assess separately and close here though. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC) I should probably note now that any uninvolved that assess this come to a consensus not just based off the option choices, seeing as in the time since I posted this it’s gotten close vote wise. Right now, looking at the broader picture, there appears to be broad consensus taking shape to keep a date range in the title. (and if you’re trying to be specific, as I’m typing this, the date range choices combined are leading over the simple titles). I say this just so we don’t end up with a contested closure like the one that befell the Tri-State tornado page above it seems. Hope that helps! MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Concensus seems to have shifted to E/NC based on a vote yesterday. — EF5 14:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Actually no. The date range options (A B and C) combined outweigh the non-date range votes (D and E) combined by a lot (12-9). Saying it shifted to E would probably be improper consensus as the majority so far want to keep the date range and would pretty likely get contested like the Tri-State. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC) MarioProtIV, you can't close something as "ABC". It's either "A", "B", or "C". This isn't the place for further arguments on this anyways. — EF5 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC) I participated in this discussion, but will try to give a list of votes not clumped together in an unbiased way. A - 6 B - 3 C - 3 D - 3 E - 7 (see below) It's clear that there isn't consensus. On Mario's point of the clumped votes, I counted one user who supported the date ranges but didn't give a letter-based vote (@Tornado Tracker2:) and one user (can you ping IPs?) who opposed A through C but never voted in support of not having a date range. I also counted one user who opposed the refresh as a whole (@Fram:), but I'm not going to interpret their comment one way or another as that would be biased. Pinging both users because you obviously don't want to misinterpret a vote. — EF5 18:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC) But there is broader consensus to keep the date range. And out of the options that have those, A leads them. This isn’t biased, this is simply evaluating the options to see where consensus is. As stated before, choosing E would be biased bc there are more votes that call for a date range then for that single option alone. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC) MarioProtIV, A and E both have six votes, meaning that both are on the same level. If this discussion was just about a date range or not, why did you give five different options, just to later clump them together as some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE? As stated, I counted one IP who opposed A-C, and that comment is easy to find. — EF5 18:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC) There were 5 options because several other people suggested them in the earlier parts of the discussion. But as the vote continued I realized they were getting very close and was concerned that an improper consensus would be formed that would actually not represent what the majority of users voted for, in this case keeping a date range on the title. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC) ...so you were concerned that consensus would shift and as such decided to clump them together to avoid the "refresh" closing the way you hoped? Last comment here, but that's exactly what I thought the refresh was trying to eliminate. — EF5 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC) You are twisting my words here. I became concerned that it would close with a result that was not representative of the vote at large (more people want to keep the date range vs no), and would be contested by users afterward, seeing that E was a title that somewhat WP:UNDUE in nature given the main weather event (the tornado outbreak) that was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At this point the discussion has shifted from the inclusion of the California tornado or not to trying to do away with the date range. I saw what happened with the whole Tri-State move saga, which is what I want to avoid. I did a refresh to consolidate discussion because people kept bringing up more options in subsequent talk sections and I was not wanting to have this all over the place. At this point it’s gotten so contentious I wonder if it’d just be better to close it as no consensus seeing where we’re at and just start a new RM for moving it to be "Tornado outbreak and dust storm of March 1x–1x, 2025" or something seeing how that is the primary issue right now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC) MarioProtIV, not to mention the non-neutral wording of the refresh, which states things like Brouggt up by some but opposed by some as well because even though it tries to associate the dust storm and fires and blizzard with it, I feel that gives them WP:UNDUE weight given how much more deadly and destructive the tornado outbreak was as well as that being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. and a vague title brought up by some that I feel is too broad. I mean, you used your personal opinion in the opening statement and as such compromised consensus. This is not how RMs (or whatever the heck you'd call this mess) are supposed to open. — EF5 15:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC) I said before it’d be better to close this as no consensus and start a new one instead because of how long and contentious this is. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC) I already gave my !vote before the irregular "refresh" partway through the RfC, but you can add me to the count for "E" (with "D" second choice: A, B and C don't even match the actual contents of the page, which just lists tornadoes of the 14th and 15th!). I don't think involved people are supposed to pre-indicate consensus anyway, that's a conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the voter, but since we are here anyway I left my comment as well. Fram (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Fair enough, I'll stop commenting. — EF5 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just adding here in case it’s not been said, that discussion has been open for two months and needs closure. As noted below, whoever closes should also look at #Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025 as well since both are related to the same move requests. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Also noting this RM also was started by a sock that was apparently blocked a day after the RM was made and yet I or no one else saw this. Not quite sure if this merits as tainted as well considering afterwards no sockpuppetry appeared to occur, but that is up to non-involved to assess. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 69 days ago on 20 March 2025) Has been going on for nearly two months and need closure, especially in light of a similar situation occurring on Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025. 2600:387:15:5116:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment Above user has been blocked as a sock, but as an involved party, I can attest to this entire discussion being a mess that would benefit from not being open in the background. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025_The_Hague_summit#Requested_move_23_March_2025

(Initiated 65 days ago on 23 March 2025) Open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Nathan Newman (writer)#Requested move 2 April 2025

(Initiated 56 days ago on 2 April 2025) Last comment 15 days ago. The requested move discussion has been inactive for over two weeks and appears to be stale. Requesting a neutral closer to assess and formally close the discussion. 149.40.127.191 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Binary_Alignment_Map#Requested_move_9_April_2025

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2025) Last !comment 35 days ago. Requesting closure by a neutral party of a contested technical move that currently has three comments and last comment was over a month ago. Thanks! WeWake (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Spider-Man: One More Day#Requested move 11 April 2025

(Initiated 47 days ago on 11 April 2025) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion as it has been a week since I relisted it, and no new comments have been raised. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 23:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 48#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

(Initiated 77 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 74 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)