Use the 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 69 days ago on 19 August 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 76 days ago on 12 August 2026)
FaviFake (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 3 September 2026)
Conversation has lasted over 30 days and appears to have stalled. An uninvolved closer is requested. Jacob Rampino (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 11 September 2026)
Conversation has lasted way over 30 days and appears to have stalled. An uninvolved closer is requested. Gabi S. (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 20 days ago on 7 October 2026)
This discussion has been open for about eight days and may be in need of a WP:SNOW closure. Qwerty123M (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 3 | 10 | 30 | 58 | 101 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 15 | 16 | 7 | 38 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 72 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 80 |
(Initiated 111 days ago on 8 July 2026)
* Pppery * it has begun... 23:05, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 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The discussion that started this CFD has already been archived, so it would be nice to get closure on this as well.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 26 days ago on 1 October 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 23 September 2026)
This move request was a procedural nomination attempting to resolve an inconclusive close at Talk:Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor#Requested move 7 September 2026. It has now been open for over a month (or 50 days if you include the previous discussion), but I am the only new !voter in the last 10 days. Dekimasuよ! 00:04, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 days ago on 3 July 2026)
I think there can be a consensus to this discussion, but that should be evaluated by an independent observer. If necessary/no consensus is found I will start a formal RfC but I'd like to avoid an RfC is necessary as it is costly. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
(Initiated 94 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)