Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:Closure requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure)
"WP:CR" and "WP:ANC" redirect here. For other uses, seeWikipedia:Cleanup resources,Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects,Wikipedia:Copyrights,Wikipedia:Competence is required,Wikipedia:Dispute resolution,Wikipedia:Content removal, andWP:Criteria for redaction. For the essay about good faith, seeWikipedia:Assume no clue.
Shortcuts
This page has abacklog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Wikipedia's centralizeddiscussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see thedashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards seeformal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other

    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{{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 atWikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

    Other areas tracking old discussions

    [edit]

    Administrative discussions

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5

    [edit]

    (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]

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

    [edit]

    Requests for comment

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia

    [edit]

    (Initiated 90 days ago on 18 November 2025)
    Has been a month.CNC (talk)13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been archived toWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502#RFC: Olympedia. Please restore from the archive if you close the discussion. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    unarchivedDw31415 (talk)16:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not modify other editors comments. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened a discussion atWikipedia:Discussions for discussion § RS RFC: Olympedia in hopes of nudging this to closure.Dw31415 (talk)14:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll unarchive I unarchived the discussion and update the links here to help move this along.Dw31415 (talk)15:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Per RfC: adding ban on AI-redrawn "enhanced" images

    [edit]

    (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]

    • Needs a discussion about the use of AI to remove watermarks, signatures and other marks of ownership. I suggest that this gets specific attention from the community in order to produce a robust, clear consensus.—S Marshall T/C09:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @S Marshall You are welcome to advertise this more widely. In theory it only serves to implement the result of a previous RfC, but the discussion has sprawled in a way that makes this more complicated.Toadspike[Talk]10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm reluctant to be seen to participate in the RfC by advertising it, in case the community feels it makes me involved, which would limit my ability to close RfCs about AI images in the future. I'd prefer just to suggest it here if that's OK.—S Marshall T/C10:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ...if anything, suggesting topics for discussion makes you farmore involved than posting a neutral notification of a discussion on relevant noticeboards or talk pages (though I now see that my suggestion doesn't address your suggestion). Since you have an opinion on this, you could leave the closing to someone else – there will always be another closer.Toadspike[Talk]11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See those hundred-plus day-old closure requests up there? I'm involved.  :)—S Marshall T/C11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of ongoing armed conflicts#Rfc: Use of ACLED data

    [edit]

    (Initiated 73 days ago on 5 December 2025)
    Stalled.FDW777 (talk)20:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @FDW777: next time you list something here please follow the instructions and add theinitiated template. I have done so for you.voorts (talk/contributions)20:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of best-selling video games#RfC on the best-selling video game between Minecraft and Tetris

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Reform UK#RFC DeSmog wording

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:The Bengal Files#RfC on the lead

    [edit]

    (Initiated 58 days ago on 20 December 2025)
    TryKid[dubiousdiscuss]08:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Estonia#RFC: Short description of Baltic states

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Trump's 2020 photo op at St. John's Church

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Kursk campaign#RfC on the end date of the Kursk campaign

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Reform UK#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK?

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Kaja Kallas#RfC: Footnote in infobox birthplace

    [edit]

    (Initiated 35 days ago on 12 January 2026)
    The RFC has expired, after one month.GoodDay (talk)02:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RSN#RFC: Sources on a JKR footnote

    [edit]

    (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]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#RFC: Baltic bios infoboxes question

    [edit]

    (Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
    RFC template has expired, after a month.GoodDay (talk)23:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC LLMCOMM guideline

    [edit]

    (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]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#requests for comment on enabling the 25th anniversary birthday mode

    [edit]

    (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]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists - sourcing requirements

    [edit]

    (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]

    Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows

    [edit]

    (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]

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

    [edit]

    Deletion discussions

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    VNovDecJanFebTotal
    CfD056656127
    TfD005712
    MfD00000
    FfD00321749
    RfD0001717
    AfD00011

    Small sports category discussions

    [edit]

    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]

    Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_January_8#Category:Ethnic Armenian people

    [edit]

    (Initiated 82 days ago on 26 November 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_12#Category:Typographers_and_type_designers

    [edit]

    (Initiated 66 days ago on 12 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_18#Years_in_Russia_(16th_century,_including_establishments)

    [edit]

    (Initiated 60 days ago on 18 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_19#Category:Serbs of Croatia

    [edit]

    (Initiated 60 days ago on 18 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 January 2#Category:Muslim communities of Russia

    [edit]

    (Initiated 57 days ago on 20 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 30#Category:Sufi Muslim communities in Syria

    [edit]

    (Initiated 57 days ago on 21 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 30#Category:Church buildings with domes

    [edit]

    (Initiated 56 days ago on 21 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 22#Croats and Serbs

    [edit]

    (Initiated 56 days ago on 22 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_14#File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg

    [edit]

    (Initiated 54 days ago on 24 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026 January 11#File:Bill Tom gymnast.jpeg

    [edit]

    (Initiated 54 days ago on 24 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_20#File:Aalborg_Kommunes_logo.svg

    [edit]

    (Initiated 50 days ago on 27 December 2025)
    * Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_20#File:Tulsa_Roughnecks_FC_logo.svg

    [edit]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 4 January 2026)
    * Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2026 January 24#Template:BAB-Baustein-Hinweis

    [edit]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    — Precedingunsigned comment added byWikiCleanerMan (talkcontribs)03:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_6#Template:Simon_Property_Group

    [edit]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    - Please reviewthis discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk)00:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_20#File:Château Meyney 1990.jpg

    [edit]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    * Pppery *it has begun...20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_February_1#Category:Years in Southeast Asia

    [edit]

    (Initiated 30 days ago on 17 January 2026)
    --WikiCleanerMan (talk)00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Relistedvoorts (talk/contributions)02:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Merge proposals

    [edit]
    See also:Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers

    Talk:Winter Park, Florida#Splitting proposal

    [edit]

    (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]

    This was opened a while ago. DoneNorthernWinds (talk)09:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopened. Your closure was incorrect, as you used the wrong template and didn't leave a signature or a rationale for the closure.
    In addition, there were 3 editors in support (not 2) and 2 against at the time of @BobKilcoyne's comment.FaviFake (talk)15:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for correcting my mistakeNorthernWinds (talk)16:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not correct it, I merely undid it.FaviFake (talk)16:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This counts as correction in my bookNorthernWinds (talk)16:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure!FaviFake (talk)16:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my counting error!BobKilcoyne (talk)20:03, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we seriously resurrecting a split proposal from 2022? This is stale. At best a new proposal ought to be made.Iseult Δxtalk to me10:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't closed, so this is the correct venue. The backlog for split discussions stretches even before 2022 iirc.FaviFake (talk)15:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO sometimes it's better tolet old discussions be. With a four-year break, presumably the article has changed in many ways. I'm inclined to procedurally close this one or be bold and set aside the older !votes in my close.Iseult Δxtalk to me17:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, or I guess you can just close the comments made after the CR was posted here.FaviFake (talk)17:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Closed as stale / no consensus. If anyone wants to make a new proposal, they are free to do so.  — Amakuru (talk)15:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Chono language#Merge proposal

    [edit]

    Done -(Initiated 112 days ago on 26 October 2025)
    2 months w/o discussionFaviFake (talk)15:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Closed  — Amakuru (talk)17:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Territorial authorities of New Zealand#Community boards merge proposal

    [edit]

    (Initiated 74 days ago on 4 December 2025)
    FaviFake (talk)16:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Anti-submarine mortar#Proposed merge of Anti-submarine mortar with Anti-submarine rocket

    [edit]

    (Initiated 74 days ago on 4 December 2025)
    Opecuted (talk)15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Reorganized perWP:MERGE; tagged both pages appropriately. Hopefully that gets more discussion.Iseult Δxtalk to me21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of cities in New Zealand#Merge various articles

    [edit]

    (Initiated 70 days ago on 8 December 2025)
    Discussion stopped, 1 month since nom.FaviFake (talk)17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Cook Codec#Proposing merge to RealAudio

    [edit]

    (Initiated 53 days ago on 25 December 2025)
    Stalled for 1 monthFaviFake (talk)16:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Aramaic square script#Merge proposal

    [edit]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 4 January 2026)
    The discussion has stalled.FaviFake (talk)14:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Yeison Jiménez#Merge proposal

    [edit]

    (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]

    There isn't a consensus. @Shiningr3ds has inadvertently bludgeoned the discussion, and currently the !votes in favour of supporting the merge have a majority of five to four. There wasan AfD that had to be procedurally closed due to the merge discussion already having started. In the event this closes as NC or oppose, the AfD will be reopened and relisted.11WB (talk)18:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I now understand that consensus hasn't been reached — and that's fine. But Wikipedia consensus isn't a vote count; it's determined by the quality of arguments, grounded in policy and sources. I've provided independent, non-trivial sources (El Tiempo, etc.) covering the crash itself, not just Jiménez's biography. Not a single oppose !vote has engaged with those sources directly — they've been ignored or dismissed without substantive counter-argument. I'm not going to accuse anyone of bad faith, but I do think it's worth noting that @11WB repeatedly ignored the specific sources I brought to the table while insisting the coverage didn't exist. I've said everything I need to say. I'll leave it to the closer to read the discussion and weigh the arguments, not the vote count.Shiningr3ds (talk)19:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @11WB, you should readWP:NOTAVOTE. @Shiningr3ds has given more detailed responses than the merge voters. Although, I don't know if this is ready to be closed yet.Zaptain United (talk)19:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully aware of NOTAVOTE. I was making the point that despite the slight majority, there is still a lack of consensus.11WB (talk)20:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever anyone thinks about the consensus, note that CR is for neutrally worded requests.FaviFake (talk)19:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, as nominator of the merge proposal, I agree the discussion is ripe for closure insofar as there are no new points being made, just the same points being repeated almost to the point of bludgeoning. A neutrally worded CR would of course have been preferable: the closer is supposed to draw their own conclusions.Rosbif73 (talk)07:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    IndeedFaviFake (talk)16:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Jewish pro-Palestinian activism#Merge

    [edit]

    (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]

     Done@Kowal2701:NorthernWinds (talk)12:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @NorthernWinds Remember toremove the tags when closing merge discussions :)FaviFake (talk)14:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2022 NFC Championship Game#Merge into 2022-23 NFL playoffs?

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:2024 NFC Championship Game#Merge into 2024-25 NFL playoffs

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:2023 NFC Championship Game#Merge into 2023-24 NFL playoffs?

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:2022 AFC Championship Game#Merge

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:2023 AFC Championship Game#Merge?

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Cross-dressing#Merge_Transvestism_into_here?

    [edit]

    (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]

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

    [edit]

    Requested moves

    [edit]

    Talk:Kingdom of Eastern Georgia#Requested move 1 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 1 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Relistedvoorts (talk/contributions)02:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     RelistedHurricaneZetaC22:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Pastoralia#Requested move 6 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team#Requested move 6 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk11:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville)#Requested move 7 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 40 days ago on 7 January 2026)
    Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Yahweh#Requested move 8 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 8 January 2026)
    --Justthefacts (talk)19:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    InformationNote:Justthefacts With this edit I removed the summary you attached to this request, as requests here should be neutrally worded to avoid closers going into the discussion with an opinion already in mind.HurricaneZetaC01:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Greek Super Cup 2025#Requested move 9 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 9 January 2026)
    Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)22:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     RelistedHurricaneZetaC23:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done byMatilda Maniac.Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)00:38, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Closure vacated by editorAmakuru.P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:29, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Must've been a BADNAC.Thanks,1isall (talk | contribs)00:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to help! Paine  01:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Racing game#Requested move 10 January 2026

    [edit]

    Done -(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 January 2026)
    1isall (talk | contribs)12:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Done byLuniZunie  — Amakuru (talk)14:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula#Requested move 14 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 33 days ago on 14 January 2026)
    1isall (talk | contribs)21:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Pipipi#Requested move 15 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 32 days ago on 15 January 2026)
    1isall (talk | contribs)12:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Pat White (American football)#Requested move 16 January 2026

    [edit]

    Done -(Initiated 31 days ago on 16 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Done  — Amakuru (talk)14:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg#Requested move 16 January 2026

    [edit]

    Done -(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Done  — Amakuru (talk)14:48, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:First ladies and gentlemen of Alaska#Requested move 18 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 29 days ago on 18 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Gaius Furius Sabinius Aquila Timesitheus#Requested move 19 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 27 days ago on 19 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Qurabiya#Requested move 20 January 2026

    [edit]

    Done -(Initiated 27 days ago on 20 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Done  — Amakuru (talk)11:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2026 Adamuz train derailments#Requested move 21 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 26 days ago on 21 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:RDA (Avatar)#Requested move 23 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 24 days ago on 23 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Princess Maria Antonietta of Bourbon-Two Sicilies#Requested move 27 January 2026

    [edit]

    (Initiated 20 days ago on 27 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Other types of closing requests

    [edit]

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

    [edit]

    (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]

    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]
    I have unarchived this to note that I started an RFC atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#RFC: Piped links in "See also" sections. Perhaps that will resolve the issue more clearly. --Beland (talk)09:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested close of that RFC in the above section. --Beland (talk)18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For better or worse, the broader RFC closed as "no consensus", so this now needs a case-by-case close. --Beland (talk)21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Forspoken#Total_available_sales_data_of_Japan_release

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:American_Eagle_Outfitters#Proposal_to_split_out_Sydney_Sweeney_Has_Great_Jeans

    [edit]

    (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]

    Talk:Antioch International Movement of Churches#Request for comment on anonymous former members

    [edit]

    (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]

    Note because I forgot to leave this earlier: Removed a few sentences from the original request, including a summary of the RfC, to make it more neutrally worded as to not sway closers.HurricaneZetaC20:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Gaza war#Gaza genocide in the first paragraph

    [edit]

    (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]

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

    [edit]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=1338689305"
    Categories:
    Hidden categories:

    [8]ページ先頭

    ©2009-2026 Movatter.jp