| This page has abacklog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
Archives |
| Index1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 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 41,42 |
This page has archives. Topics inactive for182 days are automatically archived byClueBot III. |
Use theclosure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor toassess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so whenconsensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to ourpolicies 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 formalrequest 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 beenarchived; 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. Ahelper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

Anyuninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so ifthe area is contentious. You should be familiar with allpolicies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at thediscussions 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 closemost discussions.Admins may not overturn yournon-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 discussionsas an unregistered user, or where implementing the closurewould need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to.Deletion andmove discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers |
|---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice atWikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.
(Initiated 9 days ago on 7 February 2026)
Quite urgent and arguments don't seem to be developing any more. Putting this here as IMO the most popular option would require administrative tools to implement.Aaron Liu (talk)02:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 90 days ago on 18 November 2025)
Has been a month.CNC (talk)13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 74 days ago on 4 December 2025)
Technically not an RfC, but deserves a close so the result can be implemented. May require a little bartendering of the wording. Listing here so this doesn't get forgotten.Toadspike[Talk]08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 73 days ago on 5 December 2025)
Stalled.FDW777 (talk)20:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 72 days ago on 6 December 2025)
- Open for almost 60 days. The last vote from an editor was over 20 days ago. The last non-neutral vote from an editor was over a month ago. Discussion about the actual subject has essentially ended, and the vast majority of the discussion that remains is about closing the RfC.Man-Man122 (talk)17:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 59 days ago on 19 December 2025)
One comment in past two weeks, has run it's course.CNC (talk)10:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 58 days ago on 20 December 2025)
TryKid [dubious –discuss]08:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 43 days ago on 4 January 2026)
- The legobot tag has expired, after a month.GoodDay (talk)03:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 37 days ago on 9 January 2026)
Request for close of Talk page discussion atDonald Trump currently titled as "RfC: Trump's 2020 photo op at St. John's Church ", which appears to have been stale since Jan 26 with no further responding editors.
This close may be offset from an overlapping 'Page split' discussion which also took place on the Talk page discussion atDonald Trump which was titled as "Merge multiple subheadings for ANI listed close request for Bulking down the article". The close for the overlapping discussion indicated an agreement among participating editors that the larger section containing the St. John's Church image should be trimmed. This may affect the closing of the current RfC listed here.
Requesting an experienced editor to do the close of this RfC which appears to have gone stale since Jan 26 when the last responding editor placed a comment. It should be noted that this RfC was listed as overlapping with a separate 'Page split' discussion which was closed (as described above) and which may influence the outcome here for this current RfC about the image for St John's Church currently in use.ErnestKrause (talk)21:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 January 2026)
Not a lot of participation despite advertising on related Wikiprojects. Last comment was 30 days ago.TurboSuperA+[talk]07:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 36 days ago on 11 January 2026)
Has been a month, a lengthy discussion that has since died down.CNC (talk)20:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 January 2026)
The RFC has expired, after one month.GoodDay (talk)02:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Seems to have stalled. Formal closure is likely needed due to the subject matter being rather divisive.Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of allFPs.10:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
RFC template has expired, after a month.GoodDay (talk)23:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Stagnant for 2 days now, after I think plenty enough discussion to determine a consensus.Athanelar (talk)15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 30 days ago on 17 January 2026)
RFC has mostly run its course. This specific feature should be availablenow (Feb 16 to Mar 16), actually, though I assume no one's gonna flip the switch without a proper closure. Note the sub-poll 'Logo to use' which should also be closed (currently blockingphab:T416771).Chlod (say hi!)15:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 28 days ago on 19 January 2026)
RFC is about to expire and has largely died down, with the newest comment made about a week ago.S5A-0043🚎(Talk)04:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 February 2026)
I know I'm requesting this probably very early, but participation at this minute has been very low lately, i.e. discussion has died down tremendous. I don't expect huge increase of participations by then. --George Ho (talk)10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
| V | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 5 | 66 | 56 | 127 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 7 | 12 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 32 | 17 | 49 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Oldest(Initiated 82 days ago on 25 November 2025)
. These are all essentially the same discussion, with the same fundamental dispute, and I just don't want to deal.* Pppery *it has begun...23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 82 days ago on 26 November 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 66 days ago on 12 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 60 days ago on 18 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 60 days ago on 18 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 57 days ago on 20 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 57 days ago on 21 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 56 days ago on 21 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 54 days ago on 24 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 54 days ago on 24 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 50 days ago on 27 December 2025)
* Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 43 days ago on 4 January 2026)
* Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
— Precedingunsigned comment added byWikiCleanerMan (talk •contribs)03:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
- Please reviewthis discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk)00:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
* Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 30 days ago on 17 January 2026)
--WikiCleanerMan (talk)00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 1532 days ago on 6 December 2021)
- Limited discussion leading to no consensus, two editors in favour of a split and two against.BobKilcoyne (talk)07:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done -(Initiated 112 days ago on 26 October 2025)
2 months w/o discussionFaviFake (talk)15:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 74 days ago on 4 December 2025)
FaviFake (talk)16:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 74 days ago on 4 December 2025)
—Opecuted (talk)15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 December 2025)
Discussion stopped, 1 month since nom.FaviFake (talk)17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 53 days ago on 25 December 2025)
Stalled for 1 monthFaviFake (talk)16:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 43 days ago on 4 January 2026)
The discussion has stalled.FaviFake (talk)14:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 January 2026)
There is consensus that the event is notable due to the death of Yeison Jiménez. The nominator has agreed that a rename toDeath of Yeison Jiménez appropriate if the article is kept. Several editors support retaining a dedicated article under such a title. Therefore, the consensus is to retain and rename the article, satisfying both notability concerns andWP:PAGEDECIDE.Shiningr3ds (talk)19:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 14 January 2026)
Several people have voiced a preference for AfD, so procedurally-speaking just waiting on a closeKowal2701 (talk)20:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article? was closed, so this discussion can likely be evaluated now.~2026-99432-3 (talk)16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article? was closed, so this discussion can likely be evaluated now.~2026-99432-3 (talk)16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article? was closed, so this discussion can likely be evaluated now.~2026-99432-3 (talk)16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article? was closed, so this discussion can likely be evaluated now.~2026-99432-3 (talk)16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 January 2026)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article? was closed, so this discussion can likely be evaluated now.~2026-99432-3 (talk)16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 26 days ago on 21 January 2026)
– A fair number of people were notified and a reasonable number of people have contributed I think.Chidgk1 (talk)05:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 46 days ago on 1 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk11:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 40 days ago on 7 January 2026)
Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 January 2026)
--Justthefacts (talk)19:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 38 days ago on 9 January 2026)
Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)22:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done -(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs)12:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 33 days ago on 14 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs)21:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
1isall (talk | contribs)12:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done -(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done -(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 29 days ago on 18 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 27 days ago on 19 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done -(Initiated 27 days ago on 20 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 26 days ago on 21 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 24 days ago on 23 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 20 days ago on 27 January 2026)
TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 174 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]
(Initiated 93 days ago on 15 November 2025)
- The question is whetherthis version achieved consensus in the discussion or not. The two changes (adding most recent sales data and adjustment of unclear/WP:OR wording) have been disputed for some time. The latter is also a follow-up adjustment to the recently closed RfC, in case that is relevant to the closer. AWP:30 editor concluded that consensus was reached, but that decision is not accepted, which is why a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is needed.Vestigia Leonis (talk)10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 93 days ago on 15 November 2025)
Has been opened for a while now with little participation. Could use a close.Some1 (talk)23:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 39 days ago on 8 January 2026)
Request for summary close of an RfC.An RfC was held on whether criticism attributed to former members in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article should be included in the article and, if so, at what weight. Requesting an uninvolved summary close to determine the consensus outcome of the RfC. --HonestHarbor (talk)22:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 38 days ago on 9 January 2026)
There remains a dispute over this discussion, it's a month old so is due closure imo.CNC (talk)21:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]