Use this 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).
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.
(Initiated 87 days ago on 19 August 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 17 September 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 02:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 29 October 2026)
I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review and close this discussion. Thank you. MrGerLib (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 24 September 2026)
Been going on for a bit, a close would help. Sorry for the chaotic mess its become. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:28, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 29 September 2026)
Has been a month, discussion has died down now. CNCin solidarity (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 33 days ago on 13 October 2026)
This RfC isn't attracting any new comments, so closure and a summary from an uninvolved editor would be helpful. Ham II (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 22 October 2026)
– Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should templates containing article body content be allowed? hasn't had comments since Friday. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 12:43, 11 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 23 October 2026)
Discussion seems to have run its course. Since it's a big question with a lot of potential effects, any closer should be very careful in assessing consensus here. Athanelar (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 October 2026)
It seems the discussion has run its course, although it is not clear if a consensus has been achieved. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 October 2026)
Has ten subquestions. It has only been open two weeks, but SNOW may be suitable for some of the questions, allowing editor attention to focus on the more contentious ones. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 12 days ago on 2 November 2026)
Has ten subquestions. It has only been open 11 days, but SNOW may be suitable for some of the questions, allowing editor attention to focus on the more contentious ones. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 4 | 15 | 33 | 30 | 82 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| FfD | 7 | 12 | 13 | 6 | 38 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 63 | 70 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 50 |
(Initiated 136 days ago on 1 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 15:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 15:40, 31 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 87 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 27 days ago on 19 October 2026)
As recommended in discusson, list at CR. CNCin solidarity (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 14 October 2026)
Fairly long discussion with multiple alternatives assessed. Relisted once nearly three weeks ago, on October 25. If you think another relist will be helpful, please leave a relisting comment. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 20 October 2026)
This discussion was last relisted 10 days ago and I don't think we are any closer to forming WP:CONSENSUS. This discussion has been relisted twice and it should not be relisted again without a good reason per WP:RELIST. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 11 days ago on 3 November 2026)
Admin closer needed (I think) because of move protection. This is my first CR for a move, so please let me know if I did it wrong. Dw31415 (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 112 days ago on 25 July 2026)
The classification question for HIP 99770 b (planet vs. a “planet or brown dwarf” hedge) was discussed in July-August 2026 at WP:NORN (post 1) and WP:NPOVN (post 2). The filings were left up for weeks for other editors to offer comments.
Every editor who commented -- other than the editor who added the material -- agreed that the added material ("planet *or* brown dwarf") was WP:SYNTH. One of the uninvolved editors then closed post 2 (a non-admin closure), referencing post 1 and reverted the added SYNTH materials on HIP 99770 b. Both discussions have since been archived.
Two months later (i.e. yesterday), the editor party to the original dispute has now reinstated material identified by others as SYNTH, arguing among other things that the uninvolved editor was not in fact uninvolved since he offered an evaluation on whether this material was SYNTH based on the disputing parties' arguments and others' comments.
To resolve this cleanly, I’m requesting an uninvolved editor review the archived NORN and NPOVN discussions and, if they agree it is warranted, formally close these discussions.
I’m not re-arguing the merits here; the full discussion is at the links above. A formal, clearly uninvolved close would settle both the sourcing question and the procedural concern that has been raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 05:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 4 October 2026)
The mythical miscellaneous merge discussion in need of a close. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:42, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 18 October 2026)
For purposes of the Foundation potentially looking into this, it would be helpful for it to have a formal close. Sdkb‑WMF talk 22:24, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 19 October 2026)
This discussion has about 110 comments so is well-attended with various opinions and is ripe for closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 20 October 2026)
Seems like there's consensus to implement one or both of the options, discussion has died down. Tenshi! (Talk page) 10:35, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 23 days ago on 22 October 2026)
The last comment was more than 12 days ago and the discussion has been well-attended so I think everyone who has a strong opinion on this matter has already responded meaning this discussion is ripe for closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 October 2026)
Nobody takes the initiative to close the discussion. Consensus seems clear (with 2:1 votes), with significant participation (~ 60 comments), and declining votes over time. I can't close it because I'm the OP. fgnievinski (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2026 (UTC)
Any user, including the user who first proposed the split, may close the discussion and move forward with the split. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2026 (UTC)
uncontroversialdiscussion, I don't want to think this proposal is very controversial, but there have been some oppose votes so far. Qwerty123M (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2026 (UTC)