Wikipedia:Closure requests

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} 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 .

Shortcuts

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. 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. 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 advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

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 (WMF)/Archive 10#RfC: Adopting a community position on WMF AI development

(Initiated 136 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I was going to close this by myself, my one-paragraph version would say:

The en.wiki community knows that Wikipedia's licencing terms permit third parties to develop AI tools based on Wikipedia. Third parties can and will develop tools that, for example, summarize Wikipedia articles, and the community has no choice but to accept this. But the community is wary both of AI's tendency to hallucinate and its tendency to reuse without attribution. Some community members are also concerned about AI's climate change implications. To the extent that the community can assert control over any AI apps that run on en.wiki content, we assert that control. We ask for the chance to test and challenge all AI tools before they're deployed, and to the extent that this is feasible, many members of the community would prefer to be consulted about important AI tools while they're still in development. We ask that where a novel tool is enabled, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, until fully tested and approved by us and other stakeholders. We insist that where a new AI-based tool is deployed, some way of opting out must exist.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already got one close review open against me, so I think I won't be quite that bold. But if other experienced closers concur with me, then I might co-sign a close.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're sharing ideas, I guess, I gave it a good read and here's my try (but again, I'm not an experienced closer nor admin so take with a grain of salt).

At present, AI is integrated into the English Wikipedia in the context of antivandalism and content translation, with varying degrees of success. While some community members support cautious experimentation with certain AI features by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), we ask that the WMF keep the community updated to the extent that they are able to. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia community rejects any attempts by the WMF to deploy new uses of AI technology on the English Wikipedia without community consensus and approval.

GoldRomean (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Change_the_Village_Pump's_colour.

(Initiated 53 days ago on 20 August 2025) Was re-pulled from the archives by another editor; ready to be closed. Some1 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please! There are no more !votes being added and the #Closure? discussion is veering more and more off topic every day. FaviFake (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Some1 and FaviFake:

Done Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vanessa_Kirby#RfC_about_how_to_document_Vanessa_Kirby's_date_of_birth

(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 September 2025) Ready to be closed by someone familary with BLP. - Nemov (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Popular Mechanics (online) for flying saucers

(Initiated 33 days ago on 9 September 2025) Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done CNC (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Bot to add dark mode compatibility to old AfDs

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 September 2025) If this is closed as unsuccessful, you can ignore the subsection. If it is closed as successful, please make a note of what actions also have to be done (e.g. un-substitution, NOINDEX) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Reliability_of_Pirate_Wires

(Initiated 32 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]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
v
t
e
V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	1	8	19	28
TfD	0	5	16	21
MfD	0	1	0	1
FfD	1	21	6	28
RfD	0	17	21	38
AfD	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23#!vote

(Initiated 76 days ago on 27 July 2025) Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_19#HODL

(Initiated 91 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 7#Madhya Pradesh League

(Initiated 70 days ago on 3 August 2025) RfD initiated 65+ days ago, needs closing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Peripheral unit

(Initiated 51 days ago on 21 August 2025) Close or final re-list? There has been no substantive activity since September 15. The second relisting on September 23 garnered no new responses. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 September 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Template:Biology nav

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 September 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_25#Template:History of the Third Polish Republic

(Initiated 31 days ago on 10 September 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge proposals

Talk:Chicken sandwich#Merge Chicken burger with Chicken sandwich

(Initiated 43 days ago on 30 August 2025) Stale discussion with no comments in the past two weeks, and no substantial discussion for three. --Belbury (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:September 2025 Philippine protests#Proposed merge of Trillion Peso March and Baha sa Luneta into September 2025 Philippine protests

(Initiated 20 days ago on 22 September 2025) While there are virtually no opposes, there are some "comment" !votes that do not really oppose the idea. Merging can also be messy. There's also an ongoing WP:RM which aside from changing the article name also changes the scope of the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested moves

Talk:2025 Davao earthquakes#Requested move 10 October 2025

(Initiated 2 days ago on 10 October 2025) per WP:SNOW. HurricaneEdgar 21:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 47 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]

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 222#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 September 2025) -- Beland (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: how exactly do we close something that has been archived? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The closer moves it back out of the archive when they close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:46, 11 October 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 VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) 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
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