Wikipedia:Closure requests

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.

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.

Please append to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with or  and an optional note, and consider sending a  to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with. After addressing a request, please mark the template with yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with, ,  , and.

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

 * Requested moves
 * Articles for deletion/Old
 * Redirects for discussion
 * Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
 * Templates for discussion
 * Miscellany for deletion
 * Proposed mergers/Log
 * Proposed article splits

ANI thread concerning Yasuke
has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC
's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion: Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Administrator recall
 * Designated RfA monitors
 * Reminder of civility norms at RfA
 * reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Gigi Hadid
Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel
Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal2701 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tom B (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN
Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

=== Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"? === - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12
This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Village_pump_(policy)
Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * — Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre
, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation
Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111
, last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Move_review/Log/2024 July
No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)