Wikipedia:Closure requests

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Archives

Index 1, 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

This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III.

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 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 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. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. 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.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• 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

(Initiated 12 days ago on 23 September 2025) Discussion seems to have slowed down, and there seems to be agreement for an IBAN of the filing editor against Randy Kryn, but is the consensus for a 1-way IBAN or a 2-way IBAN? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 305 days ago on 4 December 2024)

Only 3 comments, but I'm one of them. -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beland: I don't think this discussion needs a formal closure. Unless I'm misreading that, it's pretty obvious that all three people there agree on removing "proposed" and "emergent" buildings. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have removed those sections. Hopefully no one will complain. -- Beland (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 129 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If I was going to close this by myself, my one-paragraph version would say:

The en.wiki community knows that Wikipedia's licencing terms permit third parties to develop AI tools based on Wikipedia. Third parties can and will develop tools that, for example, summarize Wikipedia articles, and the community has no choice but to accept this. But the community is wary both of AI's tendency to hallucinate and its tendency to reuse without attribution. Some community members are also concerned about AI's climate change implications. To the extent that the community can assert control over any AI apps that run on en.wiki content, we assert that control. We ask for the chance to test and challenge all AI tools before they're deployed, and to the extent that this is feasible, many members of the community would prefer to be consulted about important AI tools while they're still in development. We ask that where a novel tool is enabled, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, until fully tested and approved by us and other stakeholders. We insist that where a new AI-based tool is deployed, some way of opting out must exist.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already got one close review open against me, so I think I won't be quite that bold. But if other experienced closers concur with me, then I might co-sign a close.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're sharing ideas, I guess, I gave it a good read and here's my try (but again, I'm not an experienced closer nor admin so take with a grain of salt).

At present, AI is integrated into the English Wikipedia in the context of antivandalism and content translation, with varying degrees of success. While some community members support cautious experimentation with certain AI features by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), we ask that the WMF keep the community updated to the extent that they are able to. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia community rejects any attempts by the WMF to deploy new uses of AI technology on the English Wikipedia without community consensus and approval.

GoldRomean (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 43 days ago on 23 August 2025) Last comments were on 3 September 2025. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 2 September 2025) This is ready to be closed. While it has become lengthy and somewhat repetitive, we hope it will not pose too much difficulty for the closing editor. Azor (talk). 13:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 September 2025) No new comments in the last two weeks, ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 25 days ago on 9 September 2025) If this is closed as unsuccessful, you can ignore the subsection. If it is closed as successful, please make a note of what actions also have to be done (e.g. un-substitution, NOINDEX) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 23 days ago on 12 September 2025) A collection of 10 RFCs related to administrator elections. Comments have slowed to a crawl. I think these are ready for closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with help from other closers, because...ten! -- Beland (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 9 days ago on 26 September 2025) This discussion is ready to be closed. The discussion has been open for more than 7 days and there is no more real activity being made. This discussion in a little lengthy and I don't think anything else said will change the outcome. The tally of this article is 4 keeps to 1 delete. -- MAWJ The Awesome (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XFD backlog

• v
• t
• e

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	1	51	0	52
TfD	0	1	37	0	38
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	1	17	0	18
RfD	0	0	50	0	50
AfD	0	0	13	0	13

(Initiated 55 days ago on 10 August 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 55 days ago on 11 August 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 50 days ago on 15 August 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 47 days ago on 18 August 2025) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 69 days ago on 27 July 2025) It's in need of closure, and I was involved in the discussion and am therefore unable to close it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 38 days ago on 27 August 2025) I closed a similar, separate discussion at Talk:Scottish units of measurement#Requested move 27 August 2025. One difference here is that more subjects could be called "English units", and the discussion seems to have started with disagreement over COMMONNAME and determining primary topic (?). I prefer someone more cautious (and well-rested) than I check if this has resolved meanwhile. The more important detail to note is that a !vote was changed twice but only the very initial one was struck. Thank you for bearing with my garrulousness and for spending time examining this RM. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 13 days ago on 21 September 2025) – Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 44 days ago on 21 August 2025) I would frame the remaining area of dispute as whether or not to make an exception to MOS:COMMONALITY such that we would use "gaol" instead of "jail" (as a lowercase common noun) for articles that use "Gaol" in a proper noun? If not, "jail" would be used (as a lowercase common noun) if "gaol" is the correct terminology. But perhaps there is some other frame to judge the outcome the closer can see. Previous discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 218#Gaol vs. jail which Xurizuri summarized here as "looks like its wrapped up, with jail preferred except in proper nouns" without formal on-page closure. (I'd like to avoid another unclear resolution if possible.) No comment on current discussion for a week, seems like all relevant arguments have been made. -- Beland (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Initiated 39 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 31 days ago on 3 September 2025) -- Beland (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]