Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for 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 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.

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. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through and Template:tlx ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

• 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

Requests for comment

Talk:Turkey#RfC on massacres and genocides in the lead

(Initiated 185 days ago on 8 October 2024) reopened RfC, has been stale now for almost 2 weeks. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kshatriya#RfC: Should we mention "Rajputs" as most successful claimants of Kshatriya status?

(Initiated 104 days ago on 28 December 2024) CharlesWain (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#RfC on the explanation of SPS

(Initiated 74 days ago on 26 January 2025) It's been open for a month, and the RfC tag was removed on 25 February. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard#RFC about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and FRINGE

(Initiated 67 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion's been open for a month and mostly stagnant, rfc tag was just archived by legobot.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Doing... DocZach (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}, I have closed the discussion and wrote a summary of the arguments and the overall conclusion. DocZach (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Unarchiving/relisting here as the close was overturned as a WP:BADNAC by an WP:INVOLVED editor per this close review Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• After the mountain of bullshit I got from The Telegraph RFC close, I'm not touching this close with a ten foot barge pole, but I'll opine here that this is a very nasty trap for the inexperienced closer. The discussion isn't hosted on WP:RSN, which I think means that even though there's consensus that this outlet is advancing a fringe narrative, nevertheless the outcome shouldn't be the effective deprecation of a source.

This wants a triumvirate close, made by people who have high bullshit tolerance and asbestos talk pages.—S Marshall T/C 13:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 104#Puberty blockers in children

(Initiated 66 days ago on 4 February 2025) This was archived by the bot, but I think it needs formal closure. JonJ937 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke/Archive 10#RfC on Infobox Image

(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 February 2025) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote was two days ago and before that was 19th of February. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Far-right politics#RfC lead image

(Initiated 60 days ago on 9 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 217#Should other groups be able to use 2FA by default?

(Initiated 59 days ago on 11 February 2025) JJP_Master (she/they) 01:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities

(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 February 2025) This was listed here, closed, taken to AN as a bad NAC and re-opened by the closernoticeboard&oldid=1278648147#Improper WP:NAC at FTN, and automatically archived from this boardrequests/Archive 39#WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities. Aaron Liu originally listed it here with the comment "Fizzled out, round in circles, consensus seems clear" which I find sums it up well apart from "consensus seems clear" downplays just how overwhelmingly clear it is. Reposting it as it still needs closure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm considering closing this, but don't want to blunder into an area I haven't interacted with before. Could somebody please explain what the function of the fringe theories noticeboard is, and what impact an unqualified "yes" consensus could be expected to have? I'm trying to wrap my head around the couple of procedural opposes. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I think after the previous closure I'd prefer trying to get an admin in, but: WP:FTN is mainly for editors to point out when someone is trying to make edits pushing "fringe theories", i.e. theories that are clearly outside the mainstream. Or at least that's what easily 90% of topics are about.

The point of a "yes" consensus here is to have something to point to when someone tries to make edits pushing certain types of anti-trans misinformation, such as that trans identity is a mental illness.

There's a bunch of active RFCs on similar topics on that noticeboard right now because a) someone tried to revisit the status of a certain organization (SEGM) as widely considered WP:FRINGE and b) during that discussion someone pointed out that what it means for an organization to be WP:FRINGE wasn't well defined and maybe it would be better to try to nail down what actual theories were WP:FRINGE instead. Loki (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR: it means it is a fringe theory covered by the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll second that I think it's better for an admin to close, but also want to note that wrt an area I haven't interacted with before: you did perform an overturned NAC on the Telegraph on trans topics RFC, where the Telegraph's pathologization of trans people was heavily discussed.talk:Compassionate727#Telegraph RFC Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

By "area" I think he meant the Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe one of the main disputes underlying this discussion is what the impact of an unqualified "yes" consensus should be. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 201#RFC: Allow for bots (e.g. Citation bot) to remove redundant URLs known to not host a full freely-accessible version.

(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 February 2025)

Closure seems fairly obvious, but this area has been contentious in the past, so formal closure would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AI images#Relist with broader question: Ban all AI images? (!vote here)

(Initiated 41 days ago on 28 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

This one was quite active for 3 months, but as of yesterday it's gone quiet. Might be time to close? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on Unite the Right Comments

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 March 2025) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025)#RFC can we say Russia won?

(Initiated 0 days ago on 11 April 2025) It has been suggested its premature. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I've fixed the RFC links, not sure why Talk:Turkey was linked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done This was closed by Alalch E.. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	1	28	25	54
TfD	0	0	12	3	15
MfD	0	0	4	2	6
FfD	0	0	9	1	10
RfD	0	0	13	17	30
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 28#Category:Redirect-Class 20th Century Studios articles of Low-importance

(Initiated 14 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 28#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios articles of NA-importance

(Initiated 14 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

(Initiated 63 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Big Five game

(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Tour of Flanders (men's race)

(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado

(Initiated 50 days ago on 20 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

(Initiated 30 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 27 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 22 days ago on 20 March 2025) Overall discussion started on the 20th, but a refresh to consolidate discussion and vote was made a bit later. Involved editor, but seems as though the Option A here has emerged as the narrow consensus here. No new discussion in last 3 days. Still need non-involved editor/admin to assess separately and close here though. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I should probably note now that any uninvolved that assess this come to a consensus not just based off the option choices, seeing as in the time since I posted this it’s gotten close vote wise. Right now, looking at the broader picture, there appears to be broad consensus taking shape to keep a date range in the title. (and if you’re trying to be specific, as I’m typing this, the date range choices combined are leading over the simple titles). I say this just so we don’t end up with a contested closure like the one that befell the Tri-State tornado page above it seems. Hope that helps! MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Concensus seems to have shifted to E/NC based on a vote yesterday. — E_F⁵ 14:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Actually no. The date range options (A B and C) combined outweigh the non-date range votes (D and E) combined by a lot (12-9). Saying it shifted to E would probably be improper consensus as the majority so far want to keep the date range and would pretty likely get contested like the Tri-State. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, you can't close something as "ABC". It's either "A", "B", or "C". This isn't the place for further arguments on this anyways. — E_F⁵ 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I participated in this discussion, but will try to give a list of votes not clumped together in an unbiased way.
A - 6
B - 3
C - 3
D - 3
E - 7 (see below)
It's clear that there isn't consensus. On Mario's point of the clumped votes, I counted one user who supported the date ranges but didn't give a letter-based vote (@Tornado Tracker2:) and one user (can you ping IPs?) who opposed A through C but never voted in support of not having a date range. I also counted one user who opposed the refresh as a whole (@Fram:), but I'm not going to interpret their comment one way or another as that would be biased. Pinging both users because you obviously don't want to misinterpret a vote. — E_F⁵ 18:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

But there is broader consensus to keep the date range. And out of the options that have those, A leads them. This isn’t biased, this is simply evaluating the options to see where consensus is. As stated before, choosing E would be biased bc there are more votes that call for a date range then for that single option alone. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

MarioProtIV, A and E both have six votes, meaning that both are on the same level. If this discussion was just about a date range or not, why did you give five different options, just to later clump them together as some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE? As stated, I counted one IP who opposed A-C, and that comment is easy to find. — E_F⁵ 18:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There were 5 options because several other people suggested them in the earlier parts of the discussion. But as the vote continued I realized they were getting very close and was concerned that an improper consensus would be formed that would actually not represent what the majority of users voted for, in this case keeping a date range on the title. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

...so you were concerned that consensus would shift and as such decided to clump them together to avoid the "refresh" closing the way you hoped? Last comment here, but that's exactly what I thought the refresh was trying to eliminate. — E_F⁵ 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

You are twisting my words here. I became concerned that it would close with a result that was not representative of the vote at large (more people want to keep the date range vs no), and would be contested by users afterward, seeing that E was a title that somewhat WP:UNDUE in nature given the main weather event (the tornado outbreak) that was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At this point the discussion has shifted from the inclusion of the California tornado or not to trying to do away with the date range. I saw what happened with the whole Tri-State move saga, which is what I want to avoid. I did a refresh to consolidate discussion because people kept bringing up more options in subsequent talk sections and I was not wanting to have this all over the place. At this point it’s gotten so contentious I wonder if it’d just be better to close it as no consensus seeing where we’re at and just start a new RM for moving it to be "Tornado outbreak and dust storm of March 1x–1x, 2025" or something seeing how that is the primary issue right now. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I already gave my !vote before the irregular "refresh" partway through the RfC, but you can add me to the count for "E" (with "D" second choice: A, B and C don't even match the actual contents of the page, which just lists tornadoes of the 14th and 15th!). I don't think involved people are supposed to pre-indicate consensus anyway, that's a conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the voter, but since we are here anyway I left my comment as well. Fram (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll stop commenting. — E_F⁵ 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 21 days ago on 20 March 2025) As the OP of this one I made the decision to withdrawl given a broader RfC was opened on the date ranges and basically rendered this specific move discussion moot. Requesting a closure with the discussion withdrawn here. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Puelche language#Requested move 31 March 2025

(Initiated 10 days ago on 31 March 2025) I have proposed here to rename the page to a more commonly used name The discussion has emained stale for over a week now. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)