This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts WP:CLOSE WP:CLD WP:DCL

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. Policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Consensus is typically reached as a natural and inherent product of the wiki-editing process; generally someone makes a change to a page content, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. Editors begin discussions to resolve disagreements that cannot be easily resolved through the normal wiki-editing process. Many community discussions and decisions happen on project pages that are specifically designed for that purpose. If discussions involve several individuals, the discourse can become lengthy and the results hard to determine. After a while, it is time to close the discussion so that the community can move on.

This page offers guidance on how and when discussions should be closed. There are no policies that directly dictate how to close a discussion. These information documents the customary practices that have evolved at Wikipedia in the years since it was started. These customs are grounded in the core principles of Wikipedia etiquette such as assuming good faith, creating consensus, and maintaining civility.

Closers may wish to read Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions for guidance on actually determining consensus and writing closes.

Many informal discussions do not need closing. Often, consensus is reached in the discussion and the outcome is obvious. Disagreements in articles are often solved by further edits. For example, two or more individuals may disagree about how a section of text in an article is written and start a discussion on the talk page. An uninvolved party might come up with a creative solution that addresses the concerns raised in the discussion. If it is a good solution, nothing needs to happen. There will be nothing more that is said, and everyone moves on. When this is the case, it often helps to leave a comment that the issue was resolved and perhaps link the edit that resolved the issue. On some pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard, the ((resolved)) template is used to note that an issue has been resolved. The template is added to the beginning of the section, with notes that indicate what action was taken. This helps shorten the reading needed to scan the page. Similarly, the ((unresolved)) template may be used to indicate that a dispute about an important issue has not found its solution, inviting more people to weigh in their ideas and opinions.

When a discussion involves many people and the outcome is not clear, it may be necessary to formally close the discussion. This is always the case in discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD), Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (CfD) and the other XfDs. Observe however that intervening to close a discussion where this mode of resolution is not customary may prove to be incendiary instead of clarifying. Here, adding the ((unresolved)) template may be a better option or informing all parties about the possibility of requesting mediation.

It may be useful to close some Requests for comments; see that page for criteria to consider.

Closing vs archiving

Closing discourages people from continuing to post comments, while leaving the discussion on the page, so that editors can read it. This may be accomplished by placing templates such as ((Archive top)) and ((Archive bottom)) or ((Closed rfc top)) and ((Closed rfc bottom)) around a discussion. In addition to formal closes that analyze the consensus of a discussion, discussions may also be closed where someone, usually an administrator, decides that the discussion is irrelevant or disruptive. This practice is used quite often on pages that attract heated dispute, although there are no rules in place governing its use, and there are times when closing a discussion can create even more strife than had existed before.

Summarizing documents the outcome of the discussion (e.g. "The result was to keep the page"). Outside of the various deletion processes, most discussions are neither closed nor summarized.

Archiving is when the discussion is moved into an archive area. This is usually done automatically by a bot, when no new comments have been added for a defined length of time. Most discussions go into Talk page archives with no need for a summary. However, sometimes an active issue will be archived while waiting for an uninvolved editor to write a summary statement. The recommended procedure at WP:PREMATUREARCHIVE is to copy-paste the discussion back onto the original page and delete the discussion from the Talk archive. The discussion may then be summarized as normal. This enures that the summary of the discussion's outcome will be visible to the editors watching that page.

• Not too soon or too late: Some processes, especially deletion-oriented pages, have a specified minimum length, typically of 7 full days. Other processes, especially Requests for Comments (RfCs), have typical lengths but no mandatory minimum. It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week.^[1] Similarly, if the discussion stopped, and editors have already assessed the consensus and moved on with their work, then there may be no need to formally close the discussion unless the process (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) requires formal closure for other reasons.
• When the discussion is stable: The more contentious the subject, the longer this may take. Two signs of achieving this state are the same editors repeating themselves, and the rate of other editors joining the conversation is slowing.
• When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful: If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. Most conversations do not need to be closed. On the other hand, when further responses are likely to result in little more than wasting everyone's time by repeating the same widely held view, then it should be closed sooner rather than later. In between, wait to see whether enough information and analysis has been presented to make the outcome (including an outcome that editors do not agree) clear.

Consensus

Many closures are based upon consensus. Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement. The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented.

The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached.^[2]

Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.^[3] If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant. If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, they are expected to decide according to the consensus. The closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument.

If you believe that it is necessary to make an explicit statement about whether consensus was reached, it may be helpful to consider three broad categories for summarizing the result of a discussion:

• Consensus in favor of (something)
• No consensus for or against (something)
• Consensus against (something)

If you write only "There was no consensus", then editors may be confused about whether you meant that no general agreement was reached or if you were trying to find a gentle way to indicate that an idea was rejected. They may also disagree later about what, exactly, wasn't agreed to.

Policy

Many closures are also based upon Wikipedia policy. As noted above, arguments that contradict policy are discounted.

Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view, as well as legal policies that require articles not violate copyright or be defamatory, are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closer must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions.^[3]

Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins.^[4] Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear.

Requesting a close

If consensus remains unclear, if the issue is a contentious one, or if there are wiki-wide implications, a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close a discussion may be made at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Please ensure that any request there seeking a close is neutrally worded, and do not use that board to continue the discussion in question.

Marking a closed discussion

Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion. Please do not close a discussion if you believe that further contributions (rather than starting a fresh discussion on the same subject) would be appropriate.

To close a discussion, use the ((archive top)) and ((archive bottom)) templates (although some particular types of discussion, such as those which concern whether to delete or rename a page, have their own specialized templates). For example:

==Discussion heading==
((archive top))
Discussion text...
((archive bottom))

The closed discussion will then look like this:

The closed discussion can also be collapsed to save space. This is achieved by using the templates ((hidden archive top)) and ((hidden archive bottom)). Because of the short name of the first of those templates – ((hat)) – performing such a closure is referred to as hatting.

Writing a summary

Sometimes, it is helpful for an editor to provide a summary statement of the outcome, if any, when closing the discussion. This optional statement may include both points of consensus and points that are not yet resolved.

((Archive top
|status = withdrawn
|result = I've decided my idea needs some work.  Thanks to everyone for the advice.  ~~~~
))
((lorem ipsum))
((Archive bottom))

which will look like this:

Additional summary format

This format is designed specifically for closes involving written analysis or conclusions of the discussion. Either this format or the former is acceptable for closes involving analysis (which chosen is at the closers discretion), but this format should not be used for closes involving no summarization.

((Discussion top|I've decided my idea needs some work.  Thanks to everyone for the advice.  ~~~~ ))
((lorem ipsum))
((Discussion bottom))

which will look like this:

All discussion closures are subject to review. Usually, reviews are initiated because someone disputes the outcome stated by the closing editor (e.g., a summary statement that some editors find confusing or incorrect), rather than the decision to discourage further discussion.

Depending on the type of discussion, a review will take place at one of several review boards, and distinct criteria are used for each board. In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment^[5]) are discussed at WP:AN. Specific instructions about each case are described in the subsections below. Any editor may participate in a discussion reviewing a close.

Remember that most contentious discussions benefit from a formal closing statement, and that closers undertake to assess consensus to the best of their abilities.

Challenging a deletion

For reviewing a closure of a deletion discussion, the Deletion review process is used.

Challenging a move

For reviewing a closure of a page move discussions, the Move review process is used.

Challenging other closures

For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself.

After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard. For reviews of requests for comment closures, you may use ((subst:RfC closure review)) to start a review (refer to instructions in that template). In your reasoning, you should give a concrete description of how you believe the close was an inappropriate or unreasonable distillation of the discussion. You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. an "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". (See WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) For example, continue your AN request opening with something like: The issue the closer was to decide was (describe issue). In closing, they applied policy X. I believe that policy Y should have been taken more into account / policy X never intended to apply to issues such as this.

Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive – a self-reported index of past AN reviews of closed discussion
• Wikipedia:Dashboard, for ongoing discussions and current requests
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion
• Wikipedia:Just drop it
• Wikipedia:Non-admin closure
• Wikipedia:Not now
• Wikipedia:Snowball clause
• Wikipedia:Voting – pages on the role of voting in and out of Wikipedia