Wiki Article
Wikipedia:Closure requests
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
 | This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to close discussions if consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. changes to policies or guidelines).
- Do not list discussions where the consensus is obvious.
- Just implement the decision!
- Do not post here to rush the closure.
- 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.
- Write 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.
- Uninvolved non-admins may close most discussions.
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.
Unregistered editors may not close discussions, and non-admins may not make closes they are unable to implement. Deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
You can append |
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
[edit]- 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 article mergers § Articles currently being merged
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits § Articles currently being split
Administrative discussions
[edit](Initiated 53 days ago on 19 August 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 17 September 2026)
The RFCs in this section, one pertaining to a community ban, have been discussed for a total of roughly ten days, and has been winding down over the last few days, so it's ready for a close in my eyes. Gramix13 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- This has been going for 14 days (just about) and had 274 comments from 49 editors. One way or the other, keeping these sorts of discussions going this long is never kind. Can an admin please do what needs to be done. TarnishedPathtalk 12:17, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 115 days ago on 18 June 2026)
This RfC was extended, but the last comment was still two months ago. Malerisch (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 28 July 2026)
Some discussions on this page have already been closed per WP:SNOW but there are still some more discussions to close under the snowball clause. I don't think every one of them can be closed yet though. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- This was just listed yesterday at WP:CENT and the vast majority of comments have come in since then. I'd say, even if a particular proposal appears to be snowing, closers should wait a few days before hatting it. Sdkb talk 13:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's summer after all. FaviFake (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's now been 30 days since the RfC began, so we are ready for regular (non-SNOW) closes. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:32, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Talk:Grooming gangs scandal#Request for Comment: Placement of Rupert Lowe's Rape Gang Inquiry Report
[edit](Initiated 69 days ago on 3 August 2026)
It got another !vote a couple of days ago but it had been stale since 18 August before that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 217#Should we introduce additional time limits for DYK nominations, in addition to the existing DYKTIMEOUT guidelines?
[edit](Initiated 66 days ago on 6 August 2026)
Last comment was 12 days ago. Someone please put this out of its misery. TarnishedPathtalk 13:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 12 August 2026)
FaviFake (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
- Now archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 215#RfC: Merge nominations at MfD. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 September 2026)
Conversation has lasted over 30 days and appears to have stalled. An uninvolved closer is requested. Jacob Rampino (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 September 2026)
Legobot did its thing. FaviFake (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Enabling_iFrame_graphics_from_Our_World_in_Data_on_English_Wikipedia
[edit](Initiated 25 days ago on 16 September 2026)
Discussion has come to consensus. John Cummings (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
I respectfully think this closure request is premature for an RFC started today. This would not merit a snow closure at this stage as I see at least three significant opposes among all of the supports. That gives me some hesitation that the outcome is clear and innevitable (although I have only skimmed the discussion). I would personally wait a week at minumum before closing this discussion just to be on the safe side. With that said, if anyone disagrees with my assesment that this isn't a snow worthy closure, they can feel free to close this discussion themselves and see if the rest of the community agrees.Gramix13 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2026 (UTC) Striking as I was incorrect about the date in which this RFC started. Gramix13 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)- Hi Gramix13 thank you for looking at it. I started the discussion on September 16th and the last comment was 7 days ago. I'm sorry if I used the initiated template wrong, I thought it meant when I initiated the request here :) thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oh my appologies, I did not notice the start date of the discussion and incorrectly assumed that today was the start date because of the template. I will strike out my words above. Thank you for correcting me and the template! :) Gramix13 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Gramix13 no worries, would you mind having a look to see if can be resolved? John Cummings (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oh my appologies, I did not notice the start date of the discussion and incorrectly assumed that today was the start date because of the template. I will strike out my words above. Thank you for correcting me and the template! :) Gramix13 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Gramix13 thank you for looking at it. I started the discussion on September 16th and the last comment was 7 days ago. I'm sorry if I used the initiated template wrong, I thought it meant when I initiated the request here :) thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]XfD discussions
[edit]| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 24 | 15 | 40 | 15 | 94 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| FfD | 0 | 15 | 18 | 2 | 35 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 30 | 24 | 54 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
(Initiated 160 days ago on 4 May 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- Jeez, how often to XfD discussion stretch over so many months without closure? Even PAM discussions were closed faster than these! FaviFake (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- This is distressingly normal at CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 151 days ago on 13 May 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 146 days ago on 18 May 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_18#Category:Deaths_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world
[edit](Initiated 113 days ago on 20 June 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 113 days ago on 20 June 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2026_July_9#Category:Anti-Palestinian_sentiment_in_Palestine
[edit](Initiated 101 days ago on 2 July 2026)
Note that one of the participants was later CBANned. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 95 days ago on 8 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 94 days ago on 9 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 19:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 September 26#Uncontainerize American people of Scottish descent and American people of Welsh descent
[edit](Initiated 53 days ago on 19 August 2026)
The discussion that started this CFD has already been archived, so it would be nice to get closure on this as well. Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 11 days ago on 30 September 2026)
This discussion has currently been open for more than nine days so it requires closure as soon as possible. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit](Initiated 4 days ago on 7 October 2026)
The proposal to rename to 2026 Belgian and French student protests has split into two questions (to include "Belgian and", to change "lycée" to "student"). Not sure if it's appropriate to close this early; it's a recent request, but also an ongoing news story that people will be trying to find on Wikipedia, and there's possibly enough consensus already. --Belbury (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 100 days ago on 3 July 2026)
I think there can be a consensus to this discussion, but that should be evaluated by an independent observer. If necessary/no consensus is found I will start a formal RfC but I'd like to avoid an RfC is necessary as it is costly. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 96 days ago on 7 July 2026)
- I think this would benefit from a closure, it was a pretty concrete and relatively simple proposal. FaviFake (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 4 September 2026)
As an involved participant, I am requesting a formal, impartial review and closing, considering this is a contentious matter and has not elicited any new !votes in a week and has devolved into editors of differing viewpoints rehashing their rationale without much movement either way. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 03:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Informal discussion like this aren't usually closed at RSN, maybe a formal RFC would be a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, in retrospect, that may be the inevitable next avenue for this matter. I don't have enough time nor energy to pursue it presently, though that is good to know for the future. Thanks, — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 19:20, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 36 days ago on 5 September 2026)
Most recent comment on 1 October 2026. Adumbrativus (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2026 (UTC)