Dark Mode

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other

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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.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

    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. This will set appropriate categories and trigger ClueBot III to archive the request. To revert a closure, please remove |done=yes and wrap your {{Done}} with strike through.

    If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead, follow the advice at Wikipedia:Closing discussions SS 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 96 days ago on 18 November 2025)
    Has been a month. CNC (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 502#RFC: Olympedia. Please restore from the archive if you close the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested <<@>> degtdeg 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    unarchived Dw31415 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not modify other editors comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested <<@>> degtdeg 20:29, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion SS RS RFC: Olympedia in hopes of nudging this to closure. Dw31415 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll unarchive I unarchived the discussion and update the links here to help move this along. Dw31415 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 81 days ago on 4 December 2025)
    Technically not an RfC, but deserves a close so the result can be implemented. May require a little bartendering of the wording. Listing here so this doesn't get forgotten. Toadspike [Talk] 08:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Needs a discussion about the use of AI to remove watermarks, signatures and other marks of ownership. I suggest that this gets specific attention from the community in order to produce a robust, clear consensus.--S Marshall T/C 09:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @S Marshall You are welcome to advertise this more widely. In theory it only serves to implement the result of a previous RfC, but the discussion has sprawled in a way that makes this more complicated. Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm reluctant to be seen to participate in the RfC by advertising it, in case the community feels it makes me involved, which would limit my ability to close RfCs about AI images in the future. I'd prefer just to suggest it here if that's OK.--S Marshall T/C 10:31, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      ...if anything, suggesting topics for discussion makes you far more involved than posting a neutral notification of a discussion on relevant noticeboards or talk pages (though I now see that my suggestion doesn't address your suggestion). Since you have an opinion on this, you could leave the closing to someone else - there will always be another closer. Toadspike [Talk] 11:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      See those hundred-plus day-old closure requests up there? I'm involved. :)--S Marshall T/C 11:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 79 days ago on 5 December 2025)
    Stalled. FDW777 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @FDW777: next time you list something here please follow the instructions and add the initiated template. I have done so for you. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 79 days ago on 6 December 2025)
    - Open for almost 60 days. The last vote from an editor was over 20 days ago. The last non-neutral vote from an editor was over a month ago. Discussion about the actual subject has essentially ended, and the vast majority of the discussion that remains is about closing the RfC.Man-Man122 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 65 days ago on 19 December 2025)
    One comment in past two weeks, has run it's course. CNC (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, while drafting a close, I discovered that there is another (strongly related) RFC there that was never closed, which is currently archived. I think either that RfC should be closed first, or they should be closed together. Link to that archived RfC: Talk:Reform UK/Archive 4#c-Helper201-20250807214100-RFC DeSmog Slomo666 (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed request, thanks for noticing. I dislike seeing RfCs go unclosed when editors have taken the time to discuss a topic, but if it's not the first time then might as well just let it archive with the other. CNC (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 64 days ago on 20 December 2025)
    TryKid [dubious - discuss] 08:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 50 days ago on 3 January 2026)
    After the RfC tag was removed, no one continued discussion. Has lasted over a month, and it's been about three weeks since anything has been said. Decent number of !votes. Floblin (Talk to me! * My contribs) 22:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 50 days ago on 4 January 2026)
    - The legobot tag has expired, after a month. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 44 days ago on 9 January 2026)

    Request for close of Talk page discussion at Donald Trump currently titled as "RfC: Trump's 2020 photo op at St. John's Church ", which appears to have been stale since Jan 26 with no further responding editors.

    This close may be offset from an overlapping 'Page split' discussion which also took place on the Talk page discussion at Donald Trump which was titled as "Merge multiple subheadings for ANI listed close request for Bulking down the article". The close for the overlapping discussion indicated an agreement among participating editors that the larger section containing the St. John's Church image should be trimmed. This may affect the closing of the current RfC listed here.

    Requesting an experienced editor to do the close of this RfC which appears to have gone stale since Jan 26 when the last responding editor placed a comment. It should be noted that this RfC was listed as overlapping with a separate 'Page split' discussion which was closed (as described above) and which may influence the outcome here for this current RfC about the image for St John's Church currently in use. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 10 January 2026)
    Not a lot of participation despite advertising on related Wikiprojects. Last comment was 30 days ago. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 11 January 2026)
    Has been a month, a lengthy discussion that has since died down. CNC (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 15 January 2026)
    Can an uninvolved admin please close this RfC? Thanks. Some1 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 15 January 2026)
    RFC template has expired, after a month. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 38 days ago on 15 January 2026)
    Stagnant for 2 days now, after I think plenty enough discussion to determine a consensus. Athanelar (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 17 January 2026)
    Can an uninvolved admin please close this RfC? Please and thank you. Some1 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 17 January 2026)
    RFC has mostly run its course. This specific feature should be available now (Feb 16 to Mar 16), actually, though I assume no one's gonna flip the switch without a proper closure. Note the sub-poll 'Logo to use' which should also be closed (currently blocking phab:T416771). Chlod (say hi!) 15:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    as the creator of the rfc, i second this request. if possible, this should be closed before 23 february, which is when the feature will be fully launched. ltbdl (bite) 12:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 19 January 2026)
    RFC is about to expire and has largely died down, with the newest comment made about a week ago. S5A-0043(Talk) 04:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 19 January 2026)
    While the discussion may not be fully over, (there have been some minor comments made right before Legobot removed the template) I think we are getting there or (basically) there. Unlikely for new !votes to add much. Slomo666 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Slomo666, were you referring to this discussion? Iseult Dx talk to me 19:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm afraid the move has made it difficult to find the discussion. It is this one Talk:Greenland crisis#RfC on the form of English to be used in this article still at the old (unmoved) name of the talk page. Slomo666 (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 19 January 2026)
    Natural causes. Totally not of #Merger proposals. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 January 2026)
    - The RFC template has expired, after one month. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 20 days ago on 3 February 2026)

    I became aware of this discussion due to a Feedback Request Service notification on my talk page. The discussion relates to the nationality of the company in the first sentence and a paragraph on alleged cultural appropriation in the controversy section. From what I could tell, the consensus was fairly clear with a single editor disagreeing with three other participants. I stated my position as a (then) neutral party agreeing with the majority and attempted to implement what I saw as the general consensus. This has since been undone by the same single editor who accused me of disruption by implementing the talk page consensus, so I am bringing it here for a more formal close. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC) [reply]

    This noticeboard is for requesting closures of discussions, not for re-litigating the discussion. Requests should remain neutral and not invite such discussion as well. CNC (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I came here to open a request but it has already been done. I'm the allegedly bad guy involved in the discussion. The whole thing has been flawed since the beginning, with two very different issues being mixed together. The request needs to be procedurally closed ASAP and the users invited to start from scratch by bringing substantiated evidence that my additions/edits are misleading or out of place, rather than just claiming things they cannot prove and mixing a question regarding a company's national affiliation with one about the controversies surrounding it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh also, the request for comment was started by a vandal and none of the users who intervened - except me - even remotely noticed how suspicious that behavior could be. Another great reason to nullify this trial against me. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another user chimed in to add unsubstantiated biased accusations. Will someone kindly intervene to stop this circus? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has serious WP:CIVIL issues [[1]] and likes to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him of being part of a conspiracy or 'team up' against him. Also seems way too invested in the topic. Guile's Theme (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I reacted to that ridiculous discussion shouldn't matter since this whole request was started in a twisted, non-neutral way by a disruptive user. That conversation says more about those who aligned with the vandal than it does about me. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    IvanScrooge98 has made 111 edits to this page, beginning 11 days after it was created in 2024. He has reverted the work of at least three other editors on these two issues. Julian in LA (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet IvanScrooge98 has built the article based on evidence and sources. Julian in LA came to vandalize it and destroy it, sadly with the help of other editors. All I want to say is it's pretty clear who is trying to contribute and who isn't. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence has been provided and the sources given do not reflect a wider public discourse or reporting of the supposed controversies around this company that he wishes to include in the article violating due weight policy. The term 'cultural appropriation' is also not actually used in the sources cited in that part of the article. Ivan has been very quick to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with him of 'bad faith' yet ironically on his user page prominently features things such as "This user has visited Palestine", "This user participates in WikiProject Palestine", "This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Souzan Fatayer." (a Palestinian-Italian figure known almost entirely for Palestinian-Israeli conflict related political activism), and "The Peace Barnstar For contributing to Global Sumud Flotilla and submitting the Freedom Flotilla Coalition". Having your opinions and biases is fine but if you are going to so quickly accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you of being the ones biased and operating on bad faith maybe you should work on topics that don't overlap with your personal politics so much or personal conflicts of interest given your already declared one with Souzan Fatayer.
    It should probably also be noted that even though WP:COIEDIT says "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" when you have a conflict of interest Ivan has made 88.4% of the total edits and written 99.1% of the text in the Souzan Fatayer article...
    https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Souzan_Fatayer Guile's Theme (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet my contributions to all of these articles have been extremely meaningful, while you still haven't uttered a single word about Julian in LA, the user who opened the witch trial against me that you're upholding and at the same time the vandal who deliberately changed "Israeli" to "Andromedan" and "Jovian" multiple times out of spite, purely for vandalic purposes. Keep making a fool of yourself. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 20 days ago on 3 February 2026)
    Discussion has died down, with one new !vote and no additions to #Discussion in the last week Placeholderer (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 19 days ago on 3 February 2026)
    I know I'm requesting this probably very early, but participation at this minute has been very low lately, i.e. discussion has died down tremendous. I don't expect huge increase of participations by then. --George Ho (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Deletion discussions

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
    CfD 0 5 65 98 168
    TfD 0 0 5 1 6
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 32 22 54
    RfD 0 0 0 79 79
    AfD 0 0 0 2 2

    Small sports category discussions

    [edit]

    Oldest (Initiated 89 days ago on 25 November 2025)
    . These are all essentially the same discussion, with the same fundamental dispute, and I just don't want to deal. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 88 days ago on 26 November 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 23:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 72 days ago on 12 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 67 days ago on 18 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 18:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 64 days ago on 20 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 63 days ago on 21 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 63 days ago on 21 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 03:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 61 days ago on 24 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 57 days ago on 27 December 2025)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 4 January 2026)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 48 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    -- Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCleanerMan (talk * contribs) 03:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 48 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    - Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 47 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    * Pppery * it has begun... 20:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 17 January 2026)
    --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Merge proposals

    [edit]

    (Initiated 97 days ago on 17 November 2025)
    Been open for a few months and discussion has not continued for over a week, discussion has some support but also some opposes, looking a for a neutral closer to close based on their read of the discussion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 80 days ago on 4 December 2025)
    --Opecuted (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Reorganized per WP:MERGE; tagged both pages appropriately. Hopefully that gets more discussion. Iseult Dx talk to me 21:34, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 77 days ago on 8 December 2025)
    Discussion stopped, 1 month since nom. FaviFake (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 59 days ago on 25 December 2025)
    Stalled for 1 month FaviFake (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 49 days ago on 4 January 2026)
    The discussion has stalled. FaviFake (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 41 days ago on 12 January 2026)
    There is consensus that the event is notable due to the death of Yeison Jimenez. The nominator has agreed that a rename to Death of Yeison Jimenez appropriate if the article is kept. Several editors support retaining a dedicated article under such a title. Therefore, the consensus is to retain and rename the article, satisfying both notability concerns and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Shiningr3ds (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't a consensus. @Shiningr3ds has inadvertently bludgeoned the discussion, and currently the !votes in favour of supporting the merge have a majority of five to four. There was an AfD that had to be procedurally closed due to the merge discussion already having started. In the event this closes as NC or oppose, the AfD will be reopened and relisted. 11WB (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I now understand that consensus hasn't been reached -- and that's fine. But Wikipedia consensus isn't a vote count; it's determined by the quality of arguments, grounded in policy and sources. I've provided independent, non-trivial sources (El Tiempo, etc.) covering the crash itself, not just Jimenez's biography. Not a single oppose !vote has engaged with those sources directly -- they've been ignored or dismissed without substantive counter-argument. I'm not going to accuse anyone of bad faith, but I do think it's worth noting that @11WB repeatedly ignored the specific sources I brought to the table while insisting the coverage didn't exist. I've said everything I need to say. I'll leave it to the closer to read the discussion and weigh the arguments, not the vote count. Shiningr3ds (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @11WB, you should read WP:NOTAVOTE. @Shiningr3ds has given more detailed responses than the merge voters. Although, I don't know if this is ready to be closed yet. Zaptain United (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully aware of NOTAVOTE. I was making the point that despite the slight majority, there is still a lack of consensus. 11WB (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever anyone thinks about the consensus, note that CR is for neutrally worded requests. FaviFake (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, as nominator of the merge proposal, I agree the discussion is ripe for closure insofar as there are no new points being made, just the same points being repeated almost to the point of bludgeoning. A neutrally worded CR would of course have been preferable: the closer is supposed to draw their own conclusions. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed FaviFake (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 32 days ago on 21 January 2026)
    - A fair number of people were notified and a reasonable number of people have contributed I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Requested moves

    [edit]

    Done - (Initiated 52 days ago on 1 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk 09:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted HurricaneZetaC 22:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done by DrKay. 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 48 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 48 days ago on 6 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk 11:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 7 January 2026)
    Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 46 days ago on 8 January 2026)
    --Justthefacts (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Justthefacts With this edit I removed the summary you attached to this request, as requests here should be neutrally worded to avoid closers going into the discussion with an opinion already in mind. HurricaneZetaC 01:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 39 days ago on 15 January 2026)
    1isall (talk | contribs) 12:58, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 35 days ago on 18 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 19 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 31 days ago on 23 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk 09:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 26 days ago on 27 January 2026)
    TarnishedPathtalk 09:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    Other types of closing requests

    [edit]

    (Initiated 180 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 at 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]
    Requested close of that RFC in the above section. -- Beland (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For better or worse, the broader RFC closed as "no consensus", so this now needs a case-by-case close. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 99 days ago on 15 November 2025)
    - The question is whether this version achieved consensus in the discussion or not. The two changes (adding most recent sales data and adjustment of unclear/WP:OR wording) have been disputed for some time. The latter is also a follow-up adjustment to the recently closed RfC, in case that is relevant to the closer. A WP:30 editor concluded that consensus was reached, but that decision is not accepted, which is why a formal closure by an uninvolved editor is needed. Vestigia Leonis (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 99 days ago on 15 November 2025)
    Has been opened for a while now with little participation. Could use a close. Some1 (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 45 days ago on 8 January 2026)
    Request for summary close of an RfC. An RfC was held on whether criticism attributed to former members in a 2019 BuzzFeed News article should be included in the article and, if so, at what weight. Requesting an uninvolved summary close to determine the consensus outcome of the RfC. --HonestHarbor (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Note because I forgot to leave this earlier: Removed a few sentences from the original request, including a summary of the RfC, to make it more neutrally worded as to not sway closers. HurricaneZetaC 20:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Initiated 45 days ago on 9 January 2026)
    There remains a dispute over this discussion, it's a month old so is due closure imo. CNC (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]