🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AFNRC
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:AFNRC)

    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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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. 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 the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions § Challenging a closure.

    Other areas tracking old discussions

    [edit]

    Administrative discussions

    [edit]

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

    [edit]

    Requests for comment

    [edit]

    (Initiated 117 days ago on 12 August 2025) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 205 § LLM/AI generated proposals? and its subsections? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree this should be closed. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thanked @Newslinger for requesting this initially, but wanted to add my support and a request that the question of WP:LLMDISCLOSE being made policy which was suggested also be considered in the close if possible. My hope is that there was enough support for that to avoid the need for a further RFC. —Locke Coletcb 22:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 88 days ago on 10 September 2025) Slowing down... also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The RFC tag has now been removed, and there's only been one new comment in the last week and a half. The discussion potentially overlaps with ARBPIA and AP2, so an experienced closer would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has now been archived to archive 492, please restore to the main page if you close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In progress. -- Beland (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 80 days ago on 18 September 2025) Coming up on 30 days and discussion has slowed, so listing now. This discussion obviously covers several CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 62 days ago on 6 October 2025) Discussion within the RFC has died down, with the last comment posted 17 days ago. Personally I find the discussion to be very messy so I don't dare to close this myself. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 13:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 62 days ago on 6 October 2025) -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 55 days ago on 13 October 2025) Discussion ended a week ago. Uhoj (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done! -- Beland (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 52 days ago on 16 October 2025) !votes have quietened, WP:CT/AP. CNC (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 47 days ago on 21 October 2025) Decision has mostly quieted down, very split opinions. May require a bartender's close. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 25 October 2025) Discussion has died down; no new comments posted for 11 days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 42 days ago on 26 October 2025): After over a month, it's time for closure. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done! -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 29 October 2025) Some1 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Already closed by User:S Marshall. -- Beland (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 31 October 2025) This RfC is ready for closure. I would be much obliged if an uninvolved editor could assess consensus and close the discussion accordingly. Yours, &c. RGloucester 04:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by RGloucester. CNC (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 31 October 2025) Ripe for closure. Cambial foliar❧ 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Closed by S Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 31 October 2025) Small discussion, but would benefit from a formal close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Limb #4 of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs applies, obvious enough that it doesn't need uninvolved closure.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      While I generally agree, this does seem to contradict WP:NACINV for non-admins per For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion (original emphasis). Given it's a well-cited essay, I'd personally be following that over the information page that references even an involved editor may summarize the discussion, given it's hang wavy type suggestion. Each to their own though, and there are enough admins about at least. CNC (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done CNC (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 35 days ago on 2 November 2025) Doesn't seem like a controversial discussion, but given that it impacts the Main Page, a clear close would probably be best. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 32 days ago on 5 November 2025) I think it's been up long enough for a close to be due. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting the discussion was initiated on 6 October while the RfC began on 5 November. CNC (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 9 November 2025) Should the RfC tag be refreshed, or should this discussion (or the specific proposal to abolish introductory articles) be closed? –LaundryPizza03 (d) 00:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 27 days ago on 10 November 2025) This has had no activity for over 48 hours and can be closed. I did request that an uninvolved administrator close this due to issues with the previous 'WP:DESTNOT' close, however any close by an experienced uninvolved editor is welcome. Another editor stated that they believed 7 days was long enough. An involved administrator recommended letting the RfC go to archive without a formal close. I am not opposed to either, however I believe a proper close would be the better option for this RfC. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with the guidance to let the RfC go to archive. I commented more in the discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ✋ @11WB would still like a close so an RfC more likely to gain consensus can be opened. I think it would be appropriate for the requester to withdraw the question but I’d like a more experienced opinion on that. Dw31415 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Several options were given, and editors have given their opinions on more than one option. So it appears that the nom should not withdraw. The nom should probably await closure of the RfC. Thank you very much, editor Dw31415, for calling my attention to this on my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Doing... Dw31415 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Dw31415 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 25 days ago on 12 November 2025): No activity for 10 days. Will benefit from a proper close/consensus. OceanHok (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest giving this one more time as I doubt many people know about it yet. Would be premature. Koriodan (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 13 days ago on 23 November 2025): 10 comments, 8 people in discussion, no comments for 3 days. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by @Beland Dw31415 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 7 days ago on 29 November 2025) I would appreciate consideration of whether early closure of this RfC is warranted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Deletion discussions

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 78 0 78
    TfD 0 3 37 0 40
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 0 9 0 9
    RfD 0 0 48 0 48
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    (Initiated 147 days ago on 13 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Closed by Rusalkii. Left guide (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 70 days ago on 28 September 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed and added to backlog at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual (which could use volunteer help.) -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 65 days ago on 3 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed! -- Beland (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 62 days ago on 6 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! -- Beland (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 58 days ago on 10 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion closed; lots of volunteer help needed for implementation. -- Beland (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 47 days ago on 21 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, but may need a followup discussion. -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 22 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Determined consensus direction, but consulting participants on implementation details. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 44 days ago on 23 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 25 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! -- Beland (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 40 days ago on 28 October 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 1 November 2025) Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 27 October 2025) last comment was 25 November. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Merge proposals

    [edit]

    (Initiated 688 days ago on 19 January 2024) open for 1 year. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC) (Talk)]] 05:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't close this because I'm involved, but interested closers should see User talk:FaviFake#Your closure of Translation merge proposal. I don't see any reason for a formal closure in this case. If something's been open for nearly two years without attracting more discussion, it's moribund. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge discussions are almost always formally closed and removed from the merge backlog, per WP:M4, especially if they are large and involve a lot of editors, as was the case here. I came across the proposal from the merge backlog. FaviFake (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done again. -- Beland (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 208 days ago on 13 May 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Closed. -- Beland (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 206 days ago on 15 May 2025) Alenoach (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Already  Done. -- Beland (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 200 days ago on 21 May 2025) No activity in a month. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- Beland (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 190 days ago on 30 May 2025) No activity in a month, with the exception of my own non-bolded comment. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- Beland (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 132 days ago on 28 July 2025) FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 108 days ago on 21 August 2025) FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 105 days ago on 24 August 2025) open for 2 months. FaviFake (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. -- Beland (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 104 days ago on 25 August 2025) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Closed. -- Beland (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 21 October 2025) More than 10 days have passed and the discussion has become stale (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    information Note: this was closed by a non-admin and reverted as badnac, it also broke the page resulting in brief consensus to split out again (restore pre merge version). Experienced closer requested. CNC (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 22 October 2025) The discussion is stale with the last comment being weeks ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 12:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done FaviFake (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 35 days ago on 1 November 2025) Has run its course. FaviFake (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! -- Beland (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Requested moves

    [edit]

    (Initiated 51 days ago on 16 October 2025) — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 23:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by Celia Homeford. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 21:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 50 days ago on 18 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 07:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 45 days ago on 23 October 2025) No discussion since early November. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done @Natg 19. TarnishedPathtalk 08:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 25 October 2025) No discussion since mid-November. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 27 October 2025) No discussion since early November. Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 40 days ago on 28 October 2025)EarthDude (Talk) 07:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 40 days ago on 28 October 2025) Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 22:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawing; discussion has been  Closed by Vpab15. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 21:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 30 October 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 06:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 29 October 2025) Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 9 November 2025). relisted on 20 November, no discussion since 23 November. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 14:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 9 November 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 07:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 28 days ago on 9 November 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 01:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 17 days ago on 20 November 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 06:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done HurricaneZetaC 20:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Other types of closing requests

    [edit]

    (Initiated 307 days ago on 3 February 2025) No new discussions since February. RPC7778 (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done LightlySeared (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 103 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 aat Wikipedia 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]

    (Initiated 52 days ago on 16 October 2025)

    This discussion seems to have ended and I think it will be useful to have an uninvolved closure to determine if there is consensus for Welsh Independence to be included in the Infobox of Wales Green Party as an ideology, consensus against inclusion or no consensus. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 31 days ago on 6 November 2025) Discussion has mostly stalled. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done! -- Beland (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 2 days ago on 5 December 2025) This looks like a snow. TarnishedPathtalk 10:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- Beland (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]