Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" and "WP:ANC" redirect here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal, and WP:Criteria for redaction. For the essay about good faith, see 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 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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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 the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent bad faith assumption and personal attacks by User:Aciram

(Initiated 23 days ago on 4 October 2025) Disucssion appears to have petered out, and there appears to be consensus for an interaction ban. As I am WP:INVOLVED, and it was a fairly low-participation !vote, requesting an uninvolved formal closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Rosguill. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrative action review#13 September 2025 ECP indef protection at Antechinus by Jimfbleak

(Initiated 21 days ago on 5 October 2025) A very busy discussion for the first day that's now become dormant for about a week. Some sort of administrative closure and resolution seems appropriate, especially since the page in question is indef-protected. Left guide (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 151 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh#RfC: Should the RSS be termed far-right instead of right-wing?

(Initiated 122 days ago on 27 June 2025) This heated, and highly contentious, discussion has been going on for months. However, it appears that it is ready to be closed. For the purpose of the closer, I have divided the RfC into a "Discussion" and a "Compromise" section. It is riddled with a lot of accusations and editor battling. I am sorry for whoever has to go through this, but it is an important RfC and needs a closure. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 76 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC:_Reliability_of_Pirate_Wires

(Initiated 47 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)

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)

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

(Initiated 39 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)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(events)#NoYear

(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 September 2025) RFC tag was recently removed after a month of being listed, there are two questions though the second one is obviously "no change", the former will need some consensus interpretation. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Ganesha811. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WION

(Initiated 33 days ago on 24 September 2025) RFC tag has been removed, ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: commas and ENGVAR

(Initiated 23 days ago on 4 October 2025) I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editor could close this RfC once thirty days have passed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	0	0	26	26
TfD	0	0	0	8	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	6	7
RfD	0	0	0	13	13
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 106 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 85 days ago on 3 August 2025) RfD initiated 65+ days ago, needs closing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 67 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)

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

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 24#Category:T-pop singers

(Initiated 50 days ago on 7 September 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 16#Category:Actors_educated_by_school_in_the_United_Kingdom

(Initiated 11 days ago on 16 October 2025) while the consensus is obvious, it has too many items for me to be able to use xfdcloser Oreocooke (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 14#Category:Danish novels by year

(Initiated 13 days ago on 14 October 2025) again, while consensus is clear, I can't use xfdcloser.

Merge proposals

See also: Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

Talk:Saiyaara (soundtrack)#Merge Proposal

(Initiated 22 days ago on 5 October 2025) The 7 days have passed (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested moves

Talk:Grand Blanc Township church attack#"2025" is not needed for the title

(Initiated 28 days ago on 29 September 2025) Started out as a discussion, was involuntarily forced into an RM, all discussion subsections should be considered together, this link is to the main discussion section. We're well past the usual week long discussion period an RM is afforded. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 15:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 26 September 2025

(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 September 2025) This discussion was previously closed, then per this move review, re-listed and re-opened for a further seven days from October 18 onward; we're now on day nine. Paging @GiantSnowman: as the closer of the MR. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No comments from me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 62 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)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Does this mean this entry can be removed? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

Indeed. FaviFake (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Infobox_(now_in...)

(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 October 2025) No one posted in 10 days. It would be nice if uninvolved editor could close as the topic was somewhat contested. 78.2.24.44 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing thank you for your time here. May I just ask whether it would be good to remove mentions of Croatia from the body of the article as well? This is a point of controversy for a long time. Just a year ago we had a broad discussion where it was concluded that Tesla had no connection to Croatia. The Rfc's question whether "Tesla's birthplace was a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire" has been overwhelmingly answered negative. Even majority of Croatian editors have voted NO to Tesla's connection to Croatia. Should article body mention Smiljan, with a hyperlink to the related page, and remove mentions of Croatia, which might confuse some readers to think that Tesla had connections to Croatia back in 19th century, for which we have a clear RfC consensus against that? If you see the article body, we have 2 more mentions of Croatia, in Early years section and as a caption to Tesla's home. 83.131.247.215 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

As I said in the closing summary, I found no support in that discussion for removing any mentions of Croatia from the body of the article as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing It wasn't discussed. Yeah, it would need a separate discussion. I was just asking for your opinion as uninvoled editor, not like formal closure opinon on that specific discussion. But ok. We'll probably have other discussion in the future. One more thing, can you implement the consensus or should I place an edit request on the talk page? 83.131.247.215 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I could do so, but it would probably be better to wait a day or two. It's sometimes helpful to let people see the closing summary before they see the change to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Some people are very mistrusting of IPs on that page due to bad experiences with socks from before, so it's better I don't have anything to do with the edit itself, the same way as I didn't participate in the discussion. 83.131.132.167 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 143 days ago on 6 June 2025)

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

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Permission to create beetle articles at a pace that exceeds the normal limit

(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 September 2025)

I think that this will benefit from a clear closing summary. The question is whether the editor has permission to exceed the ordinary acceptable rate of article creation (25 to 50 per WP:MASSCREATE).

Please be concrete, specific, and unmistakble about both the permitted rate and whether there are any additional requirements, so that there can't be any drama over differing interpretations later. For example, for the rate, if consensus for a higher limit is not found, then say something like "is not allowed to create more than 50 articles per day", and if it is found, then something like "is allowed to create more than 50 articles per day" or "up to n articles per week" or whatever the result it. And if there are additional requirements (e.g., to cite x sources, or to write at least y words), then please either say what they are or say that there are none. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Growth/decrease tags on membership numbers

(Initiated 38 days ago on 19 September 2025)

This discussion was to try to reach a consensus as to whether an increase/decrease icon should be displayed alongside the number of members in political party infoboxes. The discussion has quietened down now, with nothing added for 14 days. Can an uninvolved editor close it please, to give us a stake in the ground. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)