Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 36
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
(Initiated 622 days ago on 10 March 2023) and WP:SNOW; would like formal closure on a talk page with a contentious history so we can archive talk and start anew on prep for WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 640 days ago on 21 February 2023) Another discussion-heavy and controversial CfD. Minimal participation since 2nd relist, and only remaining open CfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Doing... ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 11:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 643 days ago on 18 February 2023) Needs a closure, RfC has long expired. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 625 days ago on 7 March 2023) This discussion is ready for a closure. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 22:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 595 days ago on 6 April 2023) Appears that consensus was reached pretty rapidly, but I'd feel more compfortable with a neutral party doing the closure. –DMartin 18:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} this request after discussion reignited. –DMartin 23:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 605 days ago on 27 March 2023) - The subsections "topic ban" and "indef" will probably need closure at some point. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Topic ban closed by Sandstein – P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Everything {{close}} now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 600 days ago on 1 April 2023) – Please close it. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by EvergreenFir. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Possible duplicate discussions at Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort
(Initiated 592 days ago on 9 April 2023) – Can someone please help determine if any of the discussions open at Talk:Camilla, Queen Consort are duplicates? And if so, which ones should be closed and which one should remain open? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- There should be one entry on this page per discussion, and each entry may then have an {{Initiated}} template with the beginning timestamp in each discussion. Please fix this, editor Rotideypoc41352! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}}: upon further reflection, not really worth the community's resources to play whack-a-mole with each new discussion. I remain confused by the discussion closures on that article talk—a departure from the usual leaving old discussions alone or merging them when appropriate. Thought I'd ask for a second opinion from people who close discussions regularly...now, I'm not sure if that's worth anyone's time, really. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 629 days ago on 4 March 2023) No active votes in two weeks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- The ed17, was going to close but saw there was a vote yesterday. If there are no votes for another week feel free to {{ping}} me and I'll close. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: Thanks and apologies! At the time I wrote this, no one had chimed in for awhile. Now there's been two in two days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: it's now been over a week since the last comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers, I'm currently studying for multiple exams this week. I'd be open to closing on Saturday if no one has yet, if not other editors are free to close while I'm busy. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good luck! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to The ed17 and Firefangledfeathers. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Good luck! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers, I'm currently studying for multiple exams this week. I'd be open to closing on Saturday if no one has yet, if not other editors are free to close while I'm busy. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: it's now been over a week since the last comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: Thanks and apologies! At the time I wrote this, no one had chimed in for awhile. Now there's been two in two days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 628 days ago on 5 March 2023) Voters were largely made in March, with only one vote being posted on 3 April. The RfC expired on 4 April. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... casualdejekyll 17:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Close}} finding consensus to include Liberalism and Centre-right, no consensus on whether or not to include Classical Liberalism, and consensus against including other discussed labels. casualdejekyll 18:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 620 days ago on 13 March 2023) No votes at all in April, can probably be closed now. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... casualdejekyll 17:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Close}} in favour of including the disputed information, with no prejudice against a subsequent RfC on the question of which format to include it in. casualdejekyll 17:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 631 days ago on 2 March 2023) No !votes in almost a week, can probably be closed now. BilledMammal (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there is a consensus in favor of this proposal I ask that the closer does not immediately implement it - there is some work that I need to do with the categories, as I intended to convert them to draft categories. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- (comment from involved editor) This discussion has continued to get !votes, and as such I feel closure is inappropriate at this time. casualdejekyll 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- There have only been three !votes in the past week and I think consensus is clear; I don't think we need to wait much longer. BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – bradv 21:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 592 days ago on 9 April 2023) – RFC was started recently, but is almost a clear WP:SNOW close. I'm involved and do not wish to make an involved pre-mature RFC close, so inviting any uninvolved editors to check out the discussion and make the assessment themselves.
Any discussions that get resolved will go some way towards reducing overall battleground behaviour on talk + reducing WP:Wikilawyering here, hence the request. Soni (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- We don't typically snow close RFC's, especially after only three days. And to say the responses have been... nuanced, is an understatement. We should leave it open for at least a week so anyone that was sent a random request has an opportunity to actually consider and respond... —Locke Cole • t • c 05:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} @Soni and Locke Cole: - closed after 13 days of discussion. starship.paint (exalt) 03:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 617 days ago on 15 March 2023) The RFC has expired. Prarambh20 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Prarambh20. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 604 days ago on 28 March 2023)
- Mostly stale. Another editor suggested closing it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to tgeorgescu. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 701 days ago on 21 December 2022) Please review this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, The linked section has now been archived, and has no contributions since January 2023. It doesn't need a formal close JeffUK 17:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 609 days ago on 24 March 2023) – I can't close because I am involved. Freoh has been admonished to drop the WP:STICK and Levivich has apparently retired. Would someone uninvolved please close this discussion that has simmered for a long time across multiple sections of the talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @DIYeditor @Freoh As an uninvolved editor I'm finding it impossible to understand what is supposed to be 'closed' here. "A brief survey of the available scholarship" is not a proposal that need consensus, it's just a literature review. I think if you could propose some concrete actions, or provide a summary there of what actions are being proposed? Listing the 'multiple sections of the talk page' that you think are all involved in this discussion would help too. JeffUK 17:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Added a summary at Talk:Constitution of the United States § A summary of the ongoing dispute. — Freoh 01:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- JeffUK, there is no dispute, the discussion should be quickly closed as 'oppose'. This book-length discussion, which was continued over and over after each consensus to oppose had been reached, is now being relitigated in a new "Summary" section which is just a rehash of already decided material. The extremely important sourcing and discussion points by Allreet and Gwillhickers ably countered the sought-for changes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - Not suitable for formal closure. Any proposal needing consensus assessment (i.e. closure) would not be valid without following the proper format of an RFC. The discussion "simmer[ing] for a long time" does not mean it should be closed. Courtesy ping to DIYeditor. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 622 days ago on 10 March 2023) – The RfC template has now been removed after 30 days. Could someone kindly close the discussion? Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 610 days ago on 23 March 2023) - seems to have consensus however when I tried to close it last time I was informed that the one who opened cannot close. Chefs-kiss (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 607 days ago on 26 March 2023) - No posts in the past fortnight. Multiple viewpoints with no clear consensus apparent. Meticulo (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}}--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 601 days ago on 31 March 2023) Hasn't been any reply in 9 days ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}}--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 584 days ago on 18 April 2023) The RfC has reached a consensus. A formal closure+careful statement is requested since the RfC sets a general precedence regarding the use of "faudster" and other labels in biographies. Bdushaw (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 587 days ago on 14 April 2023) discussion has stagnated. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 599 days ago on 2 April 2023) – needs to be closed by an experienced editor. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 608 days ago on 24 March 2023) – Opened on 24 March. While there is still some sporadic discussion, I don't think there is likely to be any new participants or issues raised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 602 days ago on 30 March 2023) discussion has stagnated. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 653 days ago on 7 February 2023) 123957a (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, I've looked at this with my closer hat on and I think it's a very difficult close. The challenges for a closer that I can see are:
- The debate is framed as a choice between two options, but I don't think they're mutually exclusive. Both versions of the table have their advantages and drawbacks, and I can't seem to see any reason why we can't display both versions of the periodic table? The debate contains no help for the closer on that point.
- DePiep derailed that debate promptly and seriously. There's a need to subtract DePiep's well-intentioned but disruptive contributions to leave a clear picture of what the community really thinks.
- The proposed colours don't look very accessible to colour-blind users. A key guideline would be Creating accessible illustrations but there's no help for the closer on that point either.
- After reading the debate I personally think I shouldn't close it. I called for DePiep to be site-banned a few days ago, which arguably makes me semi-involved; but I think it calls for a judicious and experienced closer.—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Point of order (sorta): I saw this a couple days ago and thought about jumping in, but I was wary given my lack of subject-matter familiarity. (I know of the periodic table ...) I'm even more wary now since you're encouraging an experience closer to tackle the issue, and I've only closed two RFCs. Still, I think there might be a decently noncontroversial "out" here, and I was hoping, since you have surveyed the debate, I could get your thoughts.
- The only user who supported using the 10-color scheme in the survey, Sandbh, withdrew their support. ("
I had a look at the periodic tables in 100 chemistry books to see how they indicated categories (if any) of elements. .... I conclude that: ... my support for a reversion to our multi-category PT was misguided and non-representative for our lede PT.
" and later "Since I no longer support the RfC proposal it is effectively dead given it has attracted zero support.
") All other non-neutral participants said that the block-system should be retained, though one made it conditional ("oppose for now") and, at one point, asked for a snow close so that other RFCs could be brought up considering other options. - During the RFC, the original drafter of the RFC raised an alternative proposal—using no colors—but the only users who responded to that proposal either objected to it (1 editor) or said it should be brought up in an RFC after the current RFC closes (2 editors). About a month later, Sandbh proposed, outside of the RFC, a 4-color table, which, in terms of colors, is identical to the one at Periodic_table#Overview (and nearly identical to the current table in the infobox), but which includes text denoting different categories. DePiep, over Sandbh's objection, moved that proposal to the RFC, and it received no feedback.
- The only user who supported using the 10-color scheme in the survey, Sandbh, withdrew their support. ("
- It seems to me that several editors are willing to have further discussion and consider additional options (even I the context of subsequent RFCs). Can't this RFC just be non-controversially closed as rejecting a principal reliance on the 10-color scheme? (And I took it that principal reliance was the question being debated, hence the presentation of the debate as a binary choice.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Point of order (sorta): I saw this a couple days ago and thought about jumping in, but I was wary given my lack of subject-matter familiarity. (I know of the periodic table ...) I'm even more wary now since you're encouraging an experience closer to tackle the issue, and I've only closed two RFCs. Still, I think there might be a decently noncontroversial "out" here, and I was hoping, since you have surveyed the debate, I could get your thoughts.
- Well, Sandbh very helpfully tried several proposals in that debate to see what could gain consensus. He withdrew one of his specific proposals but is he more broadly opposed to the 10-colour scheme now? I don't see that in the debate. Also, I think there is another person in favour of the 10-colour scheme: the nominator, User:123957a.
- I agree with you that there was a lack of response to the alternative proposals. In this case I can only presume that equates to a lack of support for them, but I wish the debaters had engaged with these proposals and given reasons for rejecting them. That would give the closer something to summarize.
- Yes, I do think it's uncontroversial that the community wants the block scheme to get the most emphasis: it should appear first and be given the most prominence. But because you could display alternative schemes, I wouldn't confidently say that the 10-colour scheme shouldn't appear anywhere in the article.
- You could give a minimal close that just says, "There is no consensus to change anything at this stage," and then go on to explain that there's plenty of mileage left in the debate. But I don't see how that would help, or indeed who it would help?—S Marshall T/C 20:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I might've fumbled the wording there: he's 'not supporting the 10-color scheme now (see the quotes in green in my first comment). The nominator declined to vote; in response to Sandbh asking what their vote was, they replied, "
I don't know enough about this subject matter to say, which is why I asked questions and started an RfC.
". Also decent point on who it would help. A few users have suggested that closing this RFC would allow for more discussion / another RFC, so maybe it'd help in that sense?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I might've fumbled the wording there: he's 'not supporting the 10-color scheme now (see the quotes in green in my first comment). The nominator declined to vote; in response to Sandbh asking what their vote was, they replied, "
(Initiated 613 days ago on 19 March 2023)
- Comments multiple for all three options. Went stale 11 days after RfC opened. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; marked as closed in favor of Option 2. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 604 days ago on 28 March 2023) Clear majority consensus for move to List of ports in Great Britain. Majority consensus for List of ports and harbours in Northern Ireland, List of ports and harbours in Scotland and List of ports and harbours in Wales not to be affected. No additional views have been added for or against since 12 April 2023. Other editor preferred neutral closure of RFC. Titus Gold (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
- Titus Gold, please use neutral language (i.e. not advocating for any outcome) when posting here. It is not your job to assess the consensus for the closer. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, here's a neutrally worded request as per your suggestion:
- It would be greatly appreciated if an editor could provide a conclusion for the RFC List of ports in England and Wales which has since expired as an RFC on 28 April 2023. Thank you very much for your time, Titus Gold (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; closed in favor of Option One. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 598 days ago on 3 April 2023) RfC tag expiring today, discussion has faded out. Uninvolved closer recommended, because discussions on the topic (even in the past) were very heated. P1221 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; closed as Option 2. Saying 2C for now; recommending discussion on whether either 2C or 2D should apply to all elections or whether it should be subject to a case by case basis. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 572 days ago on 29 April 2023) - It appeared today that there was consensus for a slightly early closure. The page & its talk have been messed up by undiscussed and cut-and-paste moves, so this is going to need someone to fix it.Estar8806 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm working on this. And it looks like previous moves have been cleaned up. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 629 days ago on 4 March 2023) No participation since last relist. Closure of this discussion will require expertise in Burmese history, as not all participants agree on whether the categories are redundant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 599 days ago on 2 April 2023) RfC tag expired yesterday, last !vote was three days ago. Experienced closer recommended. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 580 days ago on 22 April 2023) 5 days since last comment, 39 comments, 7 people in discussion, closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 631 days ago on 2 March 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 573 days ago on 28 April 2023) – This rfc revolves around the listing of a failure in the infobox, and whether it should be listed as such. While consensus in numbers is clear, this would go against outside sourcing, so I thought it best we get a third party to resolve it either way. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Alalch E. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 595 days ago on 6 April 2023) discussion has stagnated. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor casualdejekyll. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- Re-Opened by @WikiCleanerMan. Although I'm not going to edit war, I question the validity of reverting my close, given that they were the nominator and therefore certainly involved. Furthermore - consensus is not a vote, and my close was based on strength of argument - my lack of admin bits does not make my closures instantly revertible, if they are sound. WCM, you could have tried discussion on my user talk page, or failing that closure review, instead of summarily overturning a closure for the discussion you started. casualdejekyll 18:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You closed it as "keep" when there are more votes to delete. You didn't read it through hence why your close was reverted. You cited the April 26 discussion of a similar topic when they have no relevance to each other. I'd recommend an admin do it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- I read the whole discussion, actually, and I'd like it if you assumed at least a little bit of competence from me. I would dispute the statement that the two discussions "have no relevance to each other" - the cited discussion exists entirely because of the one I closed. Furthermore, John M Wolfson, Nigej, and Woodensuperman all agreed that the two situations were analogous - which in my view renders the latter two's deletion !votes weakened by the other consensus. Deletion discussions are not a vote. I would also say that reverting my closure despite being the nominator is a questionable thing to do. A headcount doesn't tell you the whole story. Ultimately, if another editor closes the discussion, I'm fine with that - but I don't think this is a consensus to delete, rather no consensus or a consensus to keep. casualdejekyll 20:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Plastikspork as no consensus. For the record, I agree that it was out-of-process for WikiCleanerMan to revert the closure (and I !voted delete) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I find this close entirely appropriate. casualdejekyll 12:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Plastikspork as no consensus. For the record, I agree that it was out-of-process for WikiCleanerMan to revert the closure (and I !voted delete) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- I read the whole discussion, actually, and I'd like it if you assumed at least a little bit of competence from me. I would dispute the statement that the two discussions "have no relevance to each other" - the cited discussion exists entirely because of the one I closed. Furthermore, John M Wolfson, Nigej, and Woodensuperman all agreed that the two situations were analogous - which in my view renders the latter two's deletion !votes weakened by the other consensus. Deletion discussions are not a vote. I would also say that reverting my closure despite being the nominator is a questionable thing to do. A headcount doesn't tell you the whole story. Ultimately, if another editor closes the discussion, I'm fine with that - but I don't think this is a consensus to delete, rather no consensus or a consensus to keep. casualdejekyll 20:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- You closed it as "keep" when there are more votes to delete. You didn't read it through hence why your close was reverted. You cited the April 26 discussion of a similar topic when they have no relevance to each other. I'd recommend an admin do it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 596 days ago on 5 April 2023) Requesting an uninvolved close. Discussion has gone on for a month and seems to have tapered down. There are further questions in the next discussions on how to move forward, but this should be settled first. starship.paint (exalt) 15:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; closed as no consensus. @Starship.paint, as stated on the closure itself, I would recommend given that the result has massive implications for the project as a whole, list the firmest proposal at centralized discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 578 days ago on 23 April 2023) – IP opened a move request 17 days ago now has zero in agreement. Could we get a close on this move request. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}}. Consensus in this informal move discussion is clear, so there is no need for formal closure. Sorry, editor Fyunck(click) if this is unsatisfying, but if you'll note at the top of this page, "...if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." So feel free to formally close it yourself, if you like. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 637 days ago on 24 February 2023) Double RfC and has gained comments for all three image options. A formal close would be nice. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 612 days ago on 20 March 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, but I'm very surprised it took this long. casualdejekyll 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 566 days ago on 6 May 2023) Discussion is stale - relisting has generated no further input. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 614 days ago on 19 March 2023) Requested as this RFC has multiple proposals, most of which would clarify or modify policy. There is fairly clear consensus on some proposals, unclear on others. There hasn't been any discussion or new votes on the original proposals in several days. There has been recent discussion on subsequently added proposals, however, these proposals are workshopping proposals for a future RFC, not requesting policy modification. Dave (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your characterization of the additional proposals is incorrect; they are not workshopping for a future RfC, they are attempting to determine a consensus on several closely related questions and if there is a consensus for them would result in the consensus being reflected in notability guidelines.
- The closer may also want to consider the following talk page discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources#Concerns about inappropriate off-wiki collaboration and covert canvassing. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- This seems to still be getting !votes. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Curiously enough, there was a spike in activity shortly after I posted the close request above. Granted 2 days does not a trend make, but activity level seems to be going down again. I agree it may be wise to give it a few more days to confirm the trend is declining. I don't think it will ever completely stop as it appears there's some pretty deep convictions on both sides of the various debates, hence the need for a 3rd party to judge any consensus or lack of. Note, I'm not the only one saying this, there's now a dedicated section of the RFC making a similar argument. Dave (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Moabdave, in that case one can use {{Closing}} to maintain a stable version of the discussion while closing if the closer does not believe the discussion will change in the future. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Curiously enough, there was a spike in activity shortly after I posted the close request above. Granted 2 days does not a trend make, but activity level seems to be going down again. I agree it may be wise to give it a few more days to confirm the trend is declining. I don't think it will ever completely stop as it appears there's some pretty deep convictions on both sides of the various debates, hence the need for a 3rd party to judge any consensus or lack of. Note, I'm not the only one saying this, there's now a dedicated section of the RFC making a similar argument. Dave (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Dear lord, 2 tomats and half a dozen proposals. You owe me a bottle of bourbon and bucket of ice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 675 days ago on 16 January 2023) Partial consensus. There are many RFCs in this talk page and there is rarely any uninvolved editor willing to touch this. MarioGom (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please hold a couple of days on this one. I would like to vote before it's closed. Thank you. Iraniangal777 (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- After more than 3 months, asking to keep the RFC open is just filibuster. MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have now voted on that RFC. MarioGom, I missed that RFC among the many other discussions and RFCs in that talk page, it has nothing to do with filibustering. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- After more than 3 months, asking to keep the RFC open is just filibuster. MarioGom (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Nobody should close this. There are seven open RfCs on that talk page, and that's ludicrous. The constant warfare on that page is sucking up utterly unreasonable amounts of the community's time and attention. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's only limiting resource and we don't have enough of it for this kind of behaviour. A sysop should close all of those RfCs without result, and then hand down a long-dated moratorium on all RfCs relating to that page.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: There may be a conduct issue there; in the past year there has been 18 RfC's. Of those, 5 have been opened by Ghazaalch, 7 have been opened by Fad Ariff, 4 have been opened by Ali Ahwazi, and 2 have been opened by Iraniangal777. BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's because the page is so contentious that they can't make even a small change without a full RfC. I don't see misconduct, personally, or at least not misconduct in RfCs -- just an utterly intractable page that isn't worth the timesink.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think all the outstanding RFCs are closed now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: At the time that you posted
There are seven open RfCs on that talk page
, the page looked like this. There was only one open RfC, in the section "RFC, Literal translation of Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK)". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)- I should have said "Seven unclosed discussions described as RfCs in the header".—S Marshall T/C 21:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- That may have been the only one with an actor RFC template, but there were multiple others languishing with results too close for an involved editor to close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: At the time that you posted
- I think all the outstanding RFCs are closed now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- It's because the page is so contentious that they can't make even a small change without a full RfC. I don't see misconduct, personally, or at least not misconduct in RfCs -- just an utterly intractable page that isn't worth the timesink.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- @S Marshall: There may be a conduct issue there; in the past year there has been 18 RfC's. Of those, 5 have been opened by Ghazaalch, 7 have been opened by Fad Ariff, 4 have been opened by Ali Ahwazi, and 2 have been opened by Iraniangal777. BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 591 days ago on 10 April 2023) Requesting an uninvolved and experienced closer for this RfC. Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 14:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 590 days ago on 12 April 2023). Requesting speedy closure. RfC focused on adding a sentence to the lede about members of the British royal family also being members of the Canadian royal family. The last comment was added 05:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC), just shy of two weeks ago. The result seems to pretty clearly be against the proposal. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
It's already in its fourth week. Recommend letting the RFC tag expire, before closing. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The RFC tag has now expired. We would appreciate a formal closure. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 587 days ago on 14 April 2023). This RFC concerns whether abuse allegations against Jamie Treadwell should be in the article. Treadwell is a member of Sword of the Spirit (SoS) and, at the time of the alleged abuse, was a member of Servants of the Word (SoW), SoS's celibate brotherhood. Michigan Radio reported that SoW leadership had received at least 4 reports of Treadwell's abuse before one family's allegations went public towards the end of the 2010s. But there are no sources directly tying SoS leadership to the abuse (though Treadwell's membership in SoS and SoW was noted in the MPR coverage). --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 585 days ago on 17 April 2023) This RfC concerns whether the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies should be changed from June 1941 to July 1941. Consensus is unclear. If an uninvolved editor finds that no consensus has been reached I would be grateful for an assessment on whether consensus has been reached on the compromise proposal here. There is a majority for the compromise proposal but it is not clear whether this represents a consensus. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 575 days ago on 26 April 2023) This discussion will require a formal close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Another 75%'r. Try an involved close next time and see if anyone complains. The consensus was clear and obvious, and we need to stop tip-toeing around infobox discussions with clear outcomes at some point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 591 days ago on 10 April 2023) Started about 3 weeks ago. Discussion has stalled. I think it's time for either a relist or a close. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 553 days ago on 18 May 2023) Likely a WP:SNOWCLOSE. Sundayclose (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 799 days ago on 15 September 2022) RfC that wrapped up a few months ago but never got a close/implementation. Should be pretty straightforward, but as I participated and it affects 300k pages, I'd prefer for someone else to give it a stamp. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 03:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 04:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 615 days ago on 18 March 2023) More than enough to determine an outcome. —Michael Z. 21:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Mzajac: {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 580 days ago on 21 April 2023) If someone gets a leg up on reading it this weekend, they could close it on time. Andre🚐 22:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by MJL * Pppery * it has begun... 00:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 580 days ago on 21 April 2023) - While the basic decision here is not close, I'd like an admin closer because many participants supported going further than the narrow framing of the original question, and I'd like someone to assess if there's consensus for that. (Also because, of course, it's a very major decision.) Loki (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Duplicate request - this is already requested above. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 555 days ago on 17 May 2023) Criteria for closing as successful was met two days ago. Is overdue for closure. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: {{Close}} – wbm1058 (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 579 days ago on 22 April 2023) – Enough to determine an outcome.Another editor has already proposed closing the discussion. 9 users in favor of returning the title to "2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt", 5 users in favor of changing name to ""2022 Peruvian constitutional crisis". here —--Elelch (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Extorc. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 588 days ago on 13 April 2023) Discussion died down and a formal closure is required from someone outside the weather project. NoahTalk 22:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 559 days ago on 12 May 2023) – Entire discussion is now moot since the buzzwords that the OP wanted to keep have been replaced in @Valereee:'s uncontested rewrite of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 552 days ago on 20 May 2023) WP:SNOW; disscussion stale since 5 days, consensus seems pretty clear. User23242343 (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 616 days ago on 16 March 2023) Discussion has died down with no clear consensus, creating a sense of stalemate over the article. I should not close this as a participant. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 23:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 00:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 560 days ago on 11 May 2023) This closure review discussion has been open for over two weeks. It was auto-archived after multiple days passed with no discussion, and it was recently un-archived by a participant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 547 days ago on 25 May 2023) Not asking for an immediate closure, but according to the ban appealing editor in that appeal request: I'm requesting this ... a week before Pride month so it will hopefully be closed either way by the time it starts because it'll break me to spend pride exiled from touching any article vaguely trans related ... I also ask that this be closed May 31st, so I don't get stuck in limbo again.
Want to give potential closers a heads-up so that this can be closed on 31 May. starship.paint (exalt) 10:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Close}} by RoySmith. starship.paint (exalt) 14:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You forgot to sign your close. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Voorts: - I am not the closer. I guess I'll just help RS. starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- My bad; I somehow missed the "by RoySmith" (time for another cup of coffee). voorts (talk/contributions) 14:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Voorts: - I am not the closer. I guess I'll just help RS. starship.paint (exalt) 14:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- You forgot to sign your close. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 570 days ago on 1 May 2023) Hello. It appears that the discussion has run its course. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are very few comments here. Have you asked for feedback from the relevant Wikiprojects on their talk pages? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have, since the beginning of the RfC. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping to StephenMacky1. BilledMammal (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 570 days ago on 1 May 2023). DRV that's several weeks overdue for closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 566 days ago on 5 May 2023) Large discussion which seems to have ran its course. – MaterialWorks 12:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 587 days ago on 15 April 2023) Since it was a formal RfC that affects the whole of Wikipedia, I would appreciate a formal closure for it. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 574 days ago on 27 April 2023) Would request a semi-experienced closer. This discussion concerned whether it was appropriate to refer to the theory as a "conspiracy theory" and the merits of other alternatives.--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 572 days ago on 30 April 2023) This discussion has been inactive for 11 days and needs an uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- where can i challenge this insane and nonsensical closing note? --FMSky (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- First, calling the closing "insane and nonsensical" isn't productive.
- Second, per the top of this page:
voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.
- where can i challenge this insane and nonsensical closing note? --FMSky (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 581 days ago on 20 April 2023) — Biruitorul Talk 19:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Biruitorul. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 651 days ago on 10 February 2023). -- Tavix (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tamzin. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 574 days ago on 28 April 2023) Rfc tag expired, a few days ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing...-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 560 days ago on 12 May 2023) Seems like consensus is obvious already, but also it's obvious that I can't close it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- Still pretty active discussion, and not a WP:SNOW situation. Give it another 5-7 days and see if it has died down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
- It has been quiet for a few days now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- The last comment was 2 days ago. Just let the discussion run its course. I don't understand the impatience. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- The last comment on the RFC question was May 19, 5 days ago. Since then, it's just personal sniping, unrelated to the question; and thankfully that stopped a few days ago, too. Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Another flurry of snow on May 30 and June 1. Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- The last comment was 2 days ago. Just let the discussion run its course. I don't understand the impatience. Nemov (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
- It has been quiet for a few days now. Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Allow the RFC to run for a month, until the tag expires. We don't want anybody showing up later, complaining of 'too early' closure. There's no deadline to meet. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- WP:RFCEND says "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration; however, Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc tag) 30 days after it begins, to avoid a buildup of stale discussions cluttering the lists and wasting commenters' time." Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Let it run its course. There's no deadline. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- It has long since run its course, with 11–4 since May 18 (two weeks ago) to follow the guidelines versus status quo, and now 13–4. I wouldn't think it would need a close, but Deadman137 has pretty much promised to edit war against following guidelines until it's closed. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Let it run its course. There's no deadline. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 543 days ago on 28 May 2023) Clear consensus to topic-ban the user from WP:AA2 topics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Rosguill – ping LaundryPizza03 –Lightoil (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 540 days ago on 31 May 2023) This should be closed by an administrator as Scottywong has already apologized and I feel nothing more need to be done, leaving the thread open just leads to more unnecessary drama. If editors think that Scottywong should not be a administrator anymore an ArbCom case should be filed. Lightoil (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Starship.paint – sent to ArbCom. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Still open.I didn't close the whole thing. Someone shifted my close of one part. This part regarding a potential IBAN is still outstanding. starship.paint (exalt) 14:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- IBAN portion closed by Newyorkbrad. We’re done here. starship.paint (exalt) 09:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 565 days ago on 6 May 2023)
This was originally a three-part RFC that is now three-and-a-half parts. Based on conversation there, we'd request experienced admin closers and, largely for the benefit of those closers, would suggest that different closers tackle each topic.
- Topic 1: What name should articles principally use to refer to a deceased trans or nonbinary person?
- {{Done}}—This topic was closed by @ScottishFinnishRadish:.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Topic 2: When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?
- Contingent subtopic: If there is a consensus for option 3, how should redirects be handled?
- Topic 3: How often should Wikipedia articles mention a deceased trans persons former name?
Thank you in advance to anyone who can help out.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- I had been intendeding to close this discussion. However, I've been sucked back to ArbCom because of the particulars of a case request so while I have opened this up and begun to read it, I'm not sure what my actual capacity for closing will be. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, sorry to have swiped this out from under you, if you were still planning on going for a close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was and just hadn't finished my wording on the close of topic 2. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, sorry to have swiped this out from under you, if you were still planning on going for a close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... topic 3. Not sure if I'll wrap it up today, or tomorrow. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, and {{done}} with topic 2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 540 days ago on 31 May 2023) Needs a basic review and close. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Was this an RFC? I don't see the RFC template (unless it was removed by a user who also added a comment, I can't find it in the history), and closing what looks to be an evenly split discussion after 7 days would be extreme.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
{{Not done}} Multiple users suggested more time was needed.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 568 days ago on 4 May 2023) Been going for 1m 3d, no comments in <2 weeks. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 23:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Mike Cline. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: now located in the AN/I archive. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 554 days ago on 18 May 2023) Any admin can settle this, it is SNOWing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal for two-sided IBAN between Heartfox and MaranoFan. starship.paint (exalt) 16:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
{{Not done}} archived discussions are not usually closed. Lightoil (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 538 days ago on 2 June 2023) This has been open 72 hours. Discussion has ceased. I'll leave admins to determine the consensus, but note that no-one has argued against some action. Many thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
{{Close}} by Extraordinary Writ ping @Sirfurboy: Lightoil (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 565 days ago on 6 May 2023) It's been a month since the start of the RFC, now we need a formal closure to formalize the consensus reached in the discussion.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Pinging @Scia Della Cometa: I believe this was a fairly straightforward close without much contention. Fieari (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 569 days ago on 2 May 2023) Should be a simple close. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 627 days ago on 6 March 2023) It is simpler than it looks: several agreements were reached during the discussion on the related Category:Hebrew Bible judges, which was renamed as a result. If you count all the votes and changed positions up, the nom has clear support. But nothing substantial has happened since 21 April, I suspect because potential closers couldn't see the wood from the trees. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 545 days ago on 26 May 2023) This RfC's been open for over two weeks and discussion seems to have died down, with the last comment posted on June 7. It's probably about the time an uninvolved editor can review and close the discussion. JOEBRO64 16:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 566 days ago on 6 May 2023) There was plenty of discussion on this topic so it's worthy of a clear close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 557 days ago on 14 May 2023) RfC tag just expired, and the last comment was three days ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 544 days ago on 27 May 2023) Pretty clear outcome, but could use a stamp to help us move on to the next step. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} @Sdkb: Stampables stamped. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 629 days ago on 4 March 2023) A merge proposal approaching no new comments in one month. Heartfox (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 04:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 547 days ago on 25 May 2023) Discussion on the wording of Turner's lead section was initiated following the subject's death. Most responses support removing mention of Turner's nationality situation given the context of her life and notability. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 572 days ago on 29 April 2023) Seems ready to close. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 544 days ago on 28 May 2023) Two comments in the past two weeks. This is an unusual discussion because although being listed at MfD, the consensus is to keep the user script but disable it pending improvement, which will require interface admin privileges to implement. For transparency, I have been very involved with this discussion and my reading of consensus matches my position, but it's a pretty clear consensus which requires reading past bolded words. The nom already requested closure at the intadmin noticeboard, and whoever actually closes the discussion should probably follow up once consensus has been made official. Folly Mox (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- To editor Folly Mox: this request was transferred to the Xfd section from the Other section below. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Scottywong Lightoil (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 601 days ago on 31 March 2023) Nominator Marcocapelle, Laurel Lodged and I reached the following agreement on 8 June 2023: Rename to Category:Low Countries theatre of the War of the First Coalition, and Create the two subcategories called Category:French conquest of the Austrian Netherlands and Category:French conquest of the Dutch Republic. We're just waiting for a closure. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 547 days ago on 24 May 2023) Move discussion started 21 days ago, as well as WP:CANVASSING. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 563 days ago on 8 May 2023) Activity has died down and no one has commented on the RFC for over a week, even after informing relevant WikiProjects and tagging relevant users. There seems to be a consensus but I'd like to request for someone uninvolved to close the discussion and determine that consensus was established. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 560 days ago on 11 May 2023) There's clearly a consensus, but activitity has died down and no one uninvolved has commented on the RfC since. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 17:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 557 days ago on 14 May 2023)
RfC just expired with a final surge of a few participants. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 552 days ago on 20 May 2023) While there's probably a consensus and activity has died down, there's a dissenter so I don't think this is obvious enough for me, an involved, to close. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 540 days ago on 31 May 2023) Opened 2 weeks ago and no further comments in 8 days. While there is consensus and strong points in favor of "yes", due to the contentious background and prior administrative actions leading up to this RFC, formal closure is needed before the next steps can be proceeded with. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 539 days ago on 1 June 2023) This is likely to come up again so it would be helpful to have a formal close as a starting point for future discussions. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 553 days ago on 18 May 2023) The RfC was archived. I think we need to know formally. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 563 days ago on 8 May 2023) Seems ready to close. No comments since 27 May. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 562 days ago on 9 May 2023) Seems ready to close. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 600 days ago on 1 April 2023) No comments since May 16. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 517 days ago on 24 June 2023) Urgent closure needed. This is an extremely volatile event taking place since yesterday and consensus around referring to it as a rebellion appears to have consolidated. Please close this RM quickly to avoid WP:CITOGENESIS and WP:CIRCULAR and to provide the best information possible at the moment it is wanted the most. Super Ψ Dro 11:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Ingenuity (talk · contribs), see this edit and this move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 559 days ago on 13 May 2023) Latest comment: 5 days ago, 8 comments, 8 people in discussion. Independent closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 580 days ago on 21 April 2023) Seems ready to close. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – was at Log/2023 April 21. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 576 days ago on 26 April 2023) This discussion hasn't gone anywhere in over a month, and I don't see a consensus in sight. As nom, I already indicated I would like to withdraw the nomination 6 days ago. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 563 days ago on 8 May 2023) Almost everyone agrees the categories should be merged, but initially it was unclear whether it would needed to be Merged as nominated (often explicitly or implicitly per WP:C2D), or Reverse Merged. After the main article was Renamed from Rurik dynasty to Rurikids by WP:RM (14–21 May 2023), WP:C2D would recommend a Reverse Merge outcome (as I noted). User:RevelationDirect pinged all editors involved on 22 May to notify them of the Renaming, but none have responded afterwards. So it's a bit difficult to interpret !Votes from before the Renaming, but we do need to close this CfM at some point. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Qwerfjkl. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 536 days ago on 4 June 2023) There is a strong consensus. Request closer for this discussion to ameliorate protesting about involved closers. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 536 days ago on 4 June 2023) No new participants or arguments in a week. Appears to have a consensus for removal based around MOS:COLOR issues. -- ferret (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 543 days ago on 29 May 2023) RfC tag expired, so uninvolved editor is needed to determine the results of the discussion. George Ho (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}}, George Ho. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 559 days ago on 13 May 2023) Activity has died down and no one has commented on the RFC for a few weeks. There seems to be a consensus but I'd like to request for someone uninvolved to close the discussion and determine that consensus was established. Poketama (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 05:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 656 days ago on 4 February 2023) Very complicated CfD with many wall of text posts. Relisted twice, and no participation since March 7. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be closed yet because the discussion simply isn't over yet, per the comment added on 9 April - it's just happening on different pages. Closing this discussion for either keep or delete would create a massive mess of the subcategories that needs to be worked out first before this discussion can be closed. It's unusual for an XfD to go on for so long, yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to be closed prematurely. casualdejekyll 18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- This process is still ongoing. When I first nominated this cat, I was still very new to CfDs in general, and didn't know that a bottom-up approach usually works better than a top-down one. Nor did I foresee this process would take several months. But there has been a working broad consensus that the term "rulers" should be replaced by something more WP:DEFINING or WP:CATSPECIFIC.
- I still update this nomination page every now and then for documentation purposes, both for myself and anyone involved or interested. I can say with confidence that we are far past the middle, and the end is in sight. The last mayor subcategory trees of Category:Rulers by century, Category:Rulers by continent, Category:Lists of rulers, Category:Women rulers are being dealt with at an accelerated rate, because we all know the drill now.
- Some lingering semantic issues include what to call "rulers" below the level of "king" (with some arguing we can't call them "monarchs", which works in most other cases). Another is whether we may be harming women's history by no longer wanting to lump regents, queens regnant, queens consort, queens mother, governors etc. together under the vague term "women rulers" (with one passionate Wikipedian, whom I respect, arguing this would lead to the "destruction" of women's history on Wikipedia, which certainly isn't my goal). I'm trying to take all these arguments seriously and find a solution in each case, especially when I don't have a ready-made alternative, but do think keeping "rulers" is no longer a viable option. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 04:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 581 days ago on 20 April 2023) Discussion has run its course — no replies in six weeks. Not clear enough for an involved close, so would appreciate a third-party taking care if it. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 553 days ago on 18 May 2023) Template expired after nearly a month of no activity.98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 543 days ago on 29 May 2023) A well-attended RfC, with close to 90 participants; I think this needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Courtesy ping to Mike Christie. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 541 days ago on 30 May 2023). -sche (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}; relisted instead, as I see a possible path to consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 528 days ago on 12 June 2023) Coming up on three weeks open and comments have pretty much stopped (the last !vote was on 25 June 2023, the previous one was a week before that) and the consensus is fairly clear for retaining the status quo. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; while the RfC tag has not expired consensus is clear and discussion has died off. Courtesy ping to SchroCat. In the future when making a request for closure please remember what such requests are required to be neutral; it is not appropriate to include your assessment of the consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Sorry - I must have missed the neutral bit in the extensive instructions above: I'll remember to keep it neutral next time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 528 days ago on 13 June 2023) – No further comments since 16 June, request uninvolved admin to close. WCMemail 16:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. While there was one edit after your request was made it appears to have been in response to the request being made, and I otherwise agree that discussion had died out. Courtesy ping to Wee Curry Monster. BilledMammal (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 519 days ago on 22 June 2023) Initially started 14 March 2023, it was relisted to garner further input. However, there doesn't appear to be much further interest. It could probably be closed some time soon. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}; five !votes since being relisted, including three since this request was made. There seems to be some appetite for further discussion; Cinderella157 please relist here once discussion has died down. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 1050 days ago on 6 January 2022) – Could use a close, discussion ended around March. It seems to be a fairly straight forward conclusion (and indeed the de facto chosen image has remained there), but a formal closure would be nice – Aza24 (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 560 days ago on 11 May 2023) Merge discussion for Republicanism in Antigua and Barbuda. Discussion seems to have run its course. Not clear enough for an involved close. Would appreciate a neutral close please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping to @Sirfurboy. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 536 days ago on 4 June 2023) I believe this RfC has a pretty clear conclusion, however, due to the fact that there have been extensive efforts by non-WP:XC users to sway the results and repeatedly request a particular side, I feel it would be beneficial to have a formal close simply to head off complaints. Fieari (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 22:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 546 days ago on 25 May 2023) The RFC started like 40 days ago, and there was a lot of discussion; however, the discussion has clearly died out as nobody has commented in 29 days. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 513 days ago on 27 June 2023) Very likely a snow close. Sundayclose (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, notify Sundayclose. Cheers. starship.paint (exalt) 02:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 661 days ago on 31 January 2023) The last vote was made on 8 February and since then the RfC has expired and there was no proper closure. There has been a dispute lately (see article's history and talk page) regarding the outcome of the RfC, so the best option would be for someone uninvolved to properly close the RfC and state what the true outcome of the RfC actually is. This would ultimately end the dispute and recent edit warring. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 510 days ago on 1 July 2023) It's pasted the 7 day mark, I would like for a uninvolved editor to proceed with the closure of the requested move. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 15:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Courtsey ping @Btspurplegalaxy. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 535 days ago on 5 June 2023) The RfC has been open for 31 days, the discussion ended on June 8, and the last !Voting comment was received on June 16. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 854 days ago on 22 July 2022) Some are confused about how to conjugate the verbs of a proper noun that is plural. There are several examples from other Wikipedia articles shared (the Rocky Mountains are, the Replacements were, the Chicago Cubs are).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.171.43 (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} closure unnecessary. IP, please note that any request on this page should be neutrally worded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 545 days ago on 26 May 2023) The discussion is disputed but seems to have ended, and as I'm an involved editor I can't close. If someone would mind doing that I'd be grateful, thanks.A.D.Hope (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 531 days ago on 9 June 2023) Discussion seems to have run its course but is not clear enough for an involved close. Seems to be the most support for Option C after over a week of discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- There have been three responses since this was requested, and the consensus is still shaky at best. I suggest we let this ride until the 30 days are up and see where we're at then. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi ScottishFinnishRadish, it's been 30 days now, and I think there's a clearer consensus for C. Would you have a look? Many thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 507 days ago on 3 July 2023) Can an uninvolved admin assess if there is a consensus within this discussion's proposals? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 05:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Combefere. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 533 days ago on 8 June 2023) The discussion is about moving EFA League Cup, an association football cup competition NOT organized by the Egyptian Football Association (EFA), to Egyptian League Cup, and moving the content currently located at Egyptian League Cup, which discuss a cup competition organized by the EFA, to the other way to EFA League Cup. More details about this proposal is mentioned in the talk page. It's been almost a month since I proposed this move, and it's been relisted twice since then. Ben5218 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ModernDayTrilobite. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 533 days ago on 7 June 2023) Seems to be a consensus after over a week of discussion. 98.113.8.17 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 533 days ago on 7 June 2023) Seems to be a consensus here as well. 98.113.8.17 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Unanimous consensus that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should be site-banned. This user has made ~500 edits since the ANI was listed, and should be blocked ASAP to prevent further disruption. Combefere ★ Talk 16:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Lourdes - jc37 18:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 529 days ago on 11 June 2023) There seems to be consensus. Several editors have indicated that they think the RfC can be closed, as it has run for almost a month, and there has been no more input for the last 2 weeks. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 681 days ago on 10 January 2023) — Whether to retain in the article a list of reports solely sourced to a non-neutral primary source, the Russian Armed Forces. —Michael Z. 17:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 18:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 18:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 769 days ago on 14 October 2022) - A merge proposal between two synonyms, Eco-terrorism and Ecotage, best considered by any uninvolved editor, the question being whether readers are best served by having the them discussed in one place or two. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 506 days ago on 5 July 2023) No objections have been made to the move request. Cortador (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Cortador: Since there is no opposition, you can just perform the move yourself, or if you can't do that for technical reasons you can make a request at WP:RM/TR. Sunrise (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Cortador. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 521 days ago on 20 June 2023) It's probably a good idea for this discussion to have an official close by an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Combefere:, I have some feedback on the close. First it was closed as no consensus as you admitted you gave less weight to certain votes, particularly those who opposed censorship (policy states "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so."). By my math I see 9 supports and 8 against, prior to any weighting of votes. Second, WP:ONUS i would think would also apply to adding and keeping a special policy to an article, in this case policy #14. As it is clear there is even an unweighted consensus to remove the policy, the consensus to keep this policy on the article, specifically keeping a special policy #14, clearly lacks consensus to keep it. Why would we allow a policy to be placed on an article, and three years later when it lacks even a simply majority of support, the policy is kept on the article? This badly fails ONUS. Third it is clear that an overwhelming percentage of recent votes have been in support, and we might take those to be uninvolved editors. Early involved editors know about and participate in an RFC and later uninvolved editors participate. It seems to me you closed it early and could have waited another few weeks to see what happens. Fourth you will also note that a few of the no votes voted so stating there was no specific proposal, which there was only a day or two after the RFC started. Fifth, many votes, including your close summary cited DUE, MEDRS, FRINGE referring to WP:CRYSTAL of what might be added in the future, while I didnt see any comments that referred to my text proposal (cited in the RFC by request of a few editors) saying my proposed text was UNDUE, FRINGE, or violated MEDRS. Thus most of the comments center on the concept of speculating on what might be added in the future (something that we already have CRYSTAL to deal with). What's the rush to close the RFC? Why weight the votes and not just count it 9 vs 8 and instead apply your interpretation of policy to change the outcome? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with much that was said here. I requested a close from an experienced editor and with all due respect that's not what has occured. Nemov (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jtbobwaysf:
- By my math it was 11 supporting and 9 against, but it's also not a vote. The bulk of the discussion centered on whether or not lab-leak theory is still considered WP:FRINGE, with seven editors on each side of that argument. Frankly, I found the arguments that it was not fringe to be somewhat weak, either entirely argument by assertion (this is not fringe because I say so), or appeals to public opinion for a scientific claim. If anything, I was in-between "no consensus" and "consensus to keep Point #14 on the basis that the lab-leak theory is fringe and undue." Editors supporting the proposition could have done better by citing reliable scientific sources to support their argument that lab leak theory was not fringe, which may have helped swing more editors to their side to form a consensus.
- WP:ONUS states in full:
"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
The only relevant disputed content is the inclusion of lab-leak theory in the article; there must be a consensus to include it. You seem to be implying that the WP:ONUS of this RfC is on editors in opposition to your proposal. This is a misapplication of the policy, which is about verifiability of information in articles, not about settling discussions on talk pages (even ones about policies). - The vast majority of comments took place in the first week of the RfC. The RfC tag had nearly expired, discussion had petered out (yes, despite one comment made about 2 weeks after everyone else had stopped discussing) and this was posted on closure requests, so it seemed an appropriate time to close.
- This was not part of my decision to close in favor of no consensus. See #1.
- WP:CRYSTAL states in part:
"Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."
You seem to be implying that Wikipedia editors cannot make consensus guidelines on talk pages for the purpose of preventing future disruptive editing to the page. This is a misapplication of the policy, which precludes certain types of speculation in articles on the basis of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
- Courtesy ping to @Nemov:
- Based on the points above, I will decline to change my closing summary, or reopen the RfC. While there are certainly more experienced editors on the encyclopedia, I felt that I had a full understanding of the history of the discussion, the arguments at play in the discussion, and the relevant policies; I would not have closed otherwise. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE applies of course, if you'd like other editors to review. Please read the policy thoroughly before proceeding in that direction. Combefere ★ Talk 15:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not going to formally challenge, but next time someone goes through the trouble of requesting a close from an experienced closer please let someone experienced close it. This needed to be handled by someone more experienced. Nemov (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Combefere:, I have some feedback on the close. First it was closed as no consensus as you admitted you gave less weight to certain votes, particularly those who opposed censorship (policy states "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so."). By my math I see 9 supports and 8 against, prior to any weighting of votes. Second, WP:ONUS i would think would also apply to adding and keeping a special policy to an article, in this case policy #14. As it is clear there is even an unweighted consensus to remove the policy, the consensus to keep this policy on the article, specifically keeping a special policy #14, clearly lacks consensus to keep it. Why would we allow a policy to be placed on an article, and three years later when it lacks even a simply majority of support, the policy is kept on the article? This badly fails ONUS. Third it is clear that an overwhelming percentage of recent votes have been in support, and we might take those to be uninvolved editors. Early involved editors know about and participate in an RFC and later uninvolved editors participate. It seems to me you closed it early and could have waited another few weeks to see what happens. Fourth you will also note that a few of the no votes voted so stating there was no specific proposal, which there was only a day or two after the RFC started. Fifth, many votes, including your close summary cited DUE, MEDRS, FRINGE referring to WP:CRYSTAL of what might be added in the future, while I didnt see any comments that referred to my text proposal (cited in the RFC by request of a few editors) saying my proposed text was UNDUE, FRINGE, or violated MEDRS. Thus most of the comments center on the concept of speculating on what might be added in the future (something that we already have CRYSTAL to deal with). What's the rush to close the RFC? Why weight the votes and not just count it 9 vs 8 and instead apply your interpretation of policy to change the outcome? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 566 days ago on 5 May 2023) (Note that this started off as more of a discussion thread before becoming more of a Requested Merge with bolded !votes.) -sche (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- It would be great if we could get a closure on this discussion. It's gotten down to just a few editors litigated their views. Nauseous Man (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closing as no consensus. @-sche @Nauseous Man, if this discussion gets reignited, consider putting it at Centralized Discussion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 523 days ago on 17 June 2023) This discussion has had a lot of a feedback and seems to be trending ~3/4 in favor of content inclusion. I'm not sure if that's enough for WP:SNOW, but it would be nice if someone could review now. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Given there was another recently closed RfC the same topic (closed by ScottishFinnishRadish on 14 June) I am not going to close this yet, although I'll leave the request here as other editors may believe that the discussion is ready for closure. For future reference NickCT, please remember that any request here should be neutrally worded; it is fine to say that you believe you see a consensus and that a discussion is ripe for closure based on that but you shouldn't say what position you believe the consensus is for. BilledMammal (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: - The guidance above reads "If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally worded request". I guess I'd argue that given the super majority, consensus doesn't seem unclear, but I'd udnerstand if folks felt differently.
- I appreciate there was a recent RfC on the topic. Is there a limit on how many RfC's on a topic we can cycle through in a given length of time? Given that this is a developing recent event, it might behoove us to be light on our feet. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- What that section refers to is that if consensus is clear then there is no need to request the discussion be closed by an uninvolved editor.
- There isn't a limit, but in this case I believe it is best to let the RfC play out. However other closers may disagree, and I have no objection if they choose to close the discussion prior to the expiry of the tag. BilledMammal (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal It has been nine days since this comment of yours, and also nine days since anybody has left a comment on the RfC. I believe it is appropriate to close it at this time. Combefere ★ Talk 15:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Xan747 (talk · contribs) WikiVirusC(talk) 12:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposed variation to WP:NOTDIRECTORY (revisiting simple lists)
(Initiated 542 days ago on 30 May 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 499 days ago on 11 July 2023)
- I think this AFD needs special care and might benefit from having more than one admin assessing consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Liz Do you think a 3 admin panel is the best option? My gut instinct is to not touch that with a 10 foot pole, but I'd be willing to assist as part of a multi-closer panel. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I felt comfortable closing this as no-consensus. While there were some less-than-helpful votes that amounted to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the core point of contention appears to be a defensible disagreement as to whether or not sources use this framing when discussing topics that fall within its scope {{Done}}. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 529 days ago on 12 June 2023) No new !votes in over a week and the main involved editors agree that it is ready to close with one wishing to start an updated RFC. Abecedare (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 01:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 528 days ago on 12 June 2023). Sticking in this request now, while it's still a little early for a close as there's still comments being added and we're still 13 days before we hit the 30 day mark, this is a long RfC. On ScottishFinnishRadish's unpatented/untrademarked tomat scale, this is approximately 2 tomats. Putting in this request now so that experienced closers can arrange now whether they want to do this as a panel, or otherwise express interest. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 04:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 524 days ago on 17 June 2023) At least one procedural matter needs a formal close here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 555 days ago on 16 May 2023) Discussion petered out about a month ago. N.b. there has been recent edit warring around related disputes, particularly by IP accounts not involved in the discussion, and that this topic is covered by EE CTOPS. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 554 days ago on 17 May 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 519 days ago on 22 June 2023) Originally opened in March 2023; relisted in June, and has gathered additional input since then. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 515 days ago on 25 June 2023) This is the latest rehashing of the 5% election rule. The discussion seems to have run its course. There have been no comments for two weeks. Please close when appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 543 days ago on 28 May 2023) Consensus appears to have been achieved already on 5 July, over 3 weeks ago. I went ahead and purged the only doubtful item myself; now nothing seems to stand in the way of Renaming as nominated. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Qwerfjkl. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 543 days ago on 28 May 2023) Consensus appears to have been achieved already on 5 July, over 3 weeks ago. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Qwerfjkl. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 546 days ago on 25 May 2023) There appears to be a consensus on this question from the WMF. Discussion continues but has mostly died out. BilledMammal (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: {{done}} JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 491 days ago on 19 July 2023) Requesting closure for snow oppose so that a more thoughtful move proposal may be put forward. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 530 days ago on 11 June 2023) In need of closure. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Charcoal feather. Courtesy ping to @Paragon Deku: Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 17:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 748 days ago on 5 November 2022) - Merge proposal with no feedback for months. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Courtesy ping to @NoonIcarus:. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 748 days ago on 5 November 2022) - Merge proposal with no feedback for months. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Courtesy ping to @NoonIcarus:. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 585 days ago on 17 April 2023) - Discussion pretty much ran its course, would like a closure. Few days ago there was another side discussion about if their was consensus to remove the accusations, should we still be using sources that have the accusations in the title. WikiVirusC(talk) 20:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know why is this discussion still going on. Everything is just turning around in circles anyway. And they started again today, without ANYTHING new in mind. Kizo2703 (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is referring to my comment seeking a continuation of the discussion and, possibly, an RFC. I'm new to the discussion, and I thought I'd brought up new/fair points, but Kizo apparently disagrees. I don' think this is the appropriate place to have a conversation on the merits of closure, so I'll let my comment there speak for itself.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, but I think Kizo has a good point that the conversation is going in circles and should be resolved sooner rather than later. Keeping it open is not necessarily good. Historyday01 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is referring to my comment seeking a continuation of the discussion and, possibly, an RFC. I'm new to the discussion, and I thought I'd brought up new/fair points, but Kizo apparently disagrees. I don' think this is the appropriate place to have a conversation on the merits of closure, so I'll let my comment there speak for itself.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Courtesy ping to @WikiVirusC:. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 524 days ago on 16 June 2023). Comments trickled in for the last couple of weeks. Consensus is not clear to me. Probably my fault for writing the question poorly. AlanStalk 06:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 598 days ago on 4 April 2023) Needing of formal close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Courtesy ping to @Iamreallygoodatcheckers:. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 523 days ago on 17 June 2023). No comments in over 2 weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 516 days ago on 24 June 2023) Expired RFC. Comments have trickled in the past two weeks. Should be an easy close, with User:Houseblaster/YFA draft being moved on top of the existing Help:Your first article. Folly Mox (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor TonyBallioni. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 516 days ago on 25 June 2023) Expired template, and most of the participants are not only against implementing the suggestions, but recommend that the article should be a candidate for deletion due to being made of Original Research.2601:249:9301:D570:909A:F52B:67C2:D58 (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. IP, a CR request should be neutral. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 536 days ago on 4 June 2023) Largely, discussion has halted, and discussion has gone on for almost two months, with a large majority in support of merging. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Cukie Gherkin. Charcoal feather (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 747 days ago on 5 November 2022) - Merge proposal with clear consensus to proceed, and no new comments for months. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Sandstein. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 657 days ago on 4 February 2023) Long-running discussion that will probably need a formal close to prevent future edit warring. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to NinjaRobotPirate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 491 days ago on 20 July 2023) The discussion has come to an end. So if an uninvolved editor could proceed with the closure, I'd really appreciate it. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 480 days ago on 30 July 2023) There have been several requests for an early closure on this RM (and there are many !votes already). SilverLocust 💬 15:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 626 days ago on 7 March 2023) - no additional editing has been made post 16 March 2023 and general outcome is users supporting to merge history on both the article and draft version per talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Iggy the Swan - I don't think a close is necessary, given the input has no opposition, what is needed is simply action and I have pinged GiantSnowman to take action. starship.paint (exalt) 14:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 560 days ago on 11 May 2023) It appears that there won't be any more comments, and I assume that there are enough discussion to draw conclusions for both sub-discussions. Prarambh20 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 501 days ago on 9 July 2023) This discussion will need a formal close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Close}}, courtesy ping to Nemov. Charcoal feather (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 491 days ago on 20 July 2023) – This has been auto-archived without closure, which I think would be helpful. Sandstein 08:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Cullen328. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 528 days ago on 12 June 2023) Discussion is split, with only a slight majority in favor of merging. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Kung Fu Man. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 521 days ago on 19 June 2023) Discussion has stagnated, with votes leaning against merge.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 532 days ago on 8 June 2023) This discussion appears to have gone stagnant. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed as no consensus. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 08:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 529 days ago on 11 June 2023) Discussion has run its course and would benefit from an uninvolved closure. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Arms & Hearts no true consensus can be gained from a discussion involving just three editors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 501 days ago on 10 July 2023) Stale discussion burning a hole in the backlog; last !vote was two weeks ago. – MaterialWorks 21:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 492 days ago on 19 July 2023) Discussion very over with overwhelming support and only a minor dissension via a neutral vote. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 486 days ago on 25 July 2023) The discussion has slowed down. Less likely to see newer comments soon. George Ho (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Z1720 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 514 days ago on 26 June 2023) Discussion seems finished. Most were of one view, although some raised procedural concerns that may prevent concensus (my fault). Would like an impartial closure who can say what the consensus was exactly. Wizmut (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 504 days ago on 7 July 2023) Discussion has run its course. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 501 days ago on 9 July 2023) It was delisted by the bot yesterday. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 494 days ago on 16 July 2023) This discussion seems to have run its course, with all comments being some form of support. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 494 days ago on 16 July 2023) Discussion seems to have run its course (last comment was 10 days ago as of writing this) Dantus21 (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 476 days ago on 4 August 2023) The discussion is ready to be conclude. Can an uninvolved editor proceed with the closure, thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 499 days ago on 12 July 2023) Following a content dispute, this discussion was created and has run for the scheduled month. During the course of the RfC, a third version of the summary was created as an "in between," less detailed than option A and more detailed than option B. I have this third option in draftspace ready to implement if that is what the closer decides. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 506 days ago on 4 July 2023) 21 days since last relist, has plenty participation. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 19:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 473 days ago on 6 August 2023) Clear consensus. In my opinion, ready for closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor qedk. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 504 days ago on 7 July 2023) No comments for about 10 days until one today, consensus seems clear but would benefit from formal closure. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I think this is fairly clear and have performed a NAC, but I will vacate my close if there are any objections. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 558 days ago on 14 May 2023) Three-part discussion was never closed, now archived. starship.paint (exalt) 15:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Starship.paint, it does not seem like a close is necessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: - why not necessary? The content has not been added. Either there is consensus or there isn't. Which is it? starship.paint (exalt) 07:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Starship.paint, per WP:WHENCLOSE,
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
. The last comment was three months ago, the discussion is already four archive pages deep, and I do not feel comfortable formally establishing a consensus for a discussion which may be out of date. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)- I am sorry AirshipJungleman29, but I do not buy that explanation. You are apparently claiming that
editors have already assessed the consensus
. I do not see any evidence of that. What's simply happened is that it was archived, nobody closed and there is no result. If you do not feel comfortable with establishing a consensus, then nobody is forcing you to, but you don't have to stop everyone else from doing it either. starship.paint (exalt) 14:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)- I hardly think it is appropriate to categorise my action as "stopping everyone else from doing it either"—one wonders where the "everyone else" has been for the last month since you posted the close request, Starship.paint. You requested an uninvolved editor to assess whether a close was necessary and, if yes, summarise the discussion. Since you appear to be requesting another uninvolved editor to do that, even though it is not your right to do so, I will WP:DISENGAGE from this discussion, and let them decide both whether my decision was appropriate and whether your conduct constitutes WP:FORUMSHOPping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am sorry AirshipJungleman29, but I do not buy that explanation. You are apparently claiming that
- Starship.paint, per WP:WHENCLOSE,
- @AirshipJungleman29: - why not necessary? The content has not been added. Either there is consensus or there isn't. Which is it? starship.paint (exalt) 07:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree no close is appropriate at this time. When conversations die out with no consensus to include content, we move on. Moreover in this case there have been additional very recent developments that would need to be considered, should the issue ever resurface with significant interest. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
... with no consensus to include content
- that's for a closer to judge. starship.paint (exalt) 13:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Update please see related notification on the article talk page SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
{{not done}}. This is something we don't see everyday... a contentious outcome of a closure request. Closing this closure request as "not done" because while some editors think that the discussion in question does not need to be closed, and some editors think that it should be closed, there is no consensus either way. The reason this doesn't happen everyday is because editors who request closure here are expected to accept the outcome and take other steps if they disagree. In this case and under these particular circumstances, the steps taken should involve reframing the old discussion and beginning a fresh, modern discussion with new, stronger arguments on the article's talk page. Hope everyone stays healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 509 days ago on 1 July 2023) Discussion seems to have settled, and while it's not an RfC a consensus closure on this source would be helpful going forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Would someone be able to close this soon? The issue of AfterEllen's reliability is coming up now on another article, and the lack of a closure here is impacting on that discussion somewhat. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 541 days ago on 30 May 2023) No comments in the past seven days. Touches multiple contentious topic areas so probably best closed by an admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 503 days ago on 8 July 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 502 days ago on 8 July 2023) RfC has expanded to consider four questions; if the name should be included in the lede, if the name should be included in the body, if the name should be included in the quote, if the quote should be included at all. Assessment of consensus on all these questions would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to BilledMammal. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 492 days ago on 19 July 2023) It's a little early, but the last comment to the RfC was 6 days ago, so I think it's ran its course. The RfC could use a formal closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Sideswipe9th. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 597 days ago on 4 April 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 589 days ago on 13 April 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 567 days ago on 5 May 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 522 days ago on 19 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Working - Not sure if this is the best icon, but whatever. Basically, it's "done", but not "implemented". I updated the populating template, but now we get to wait while the category depopulates. I'm leaving this here, in case I'm not around when it's done. Any admin is welcome to finish this at WP:CFD/W without needing to notify me. jc37 06:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Marking as {{done}} - I've made a template edit to clear the last few pages from the category, and then the CFDW bot will delete it. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 471 days ago on 8 August 2023) I would call this a dormant discussion, but no one has commented other than the nominator. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} Nomination withdrawn. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 518 days ago on 22 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like a clear consensus for retargeting Minister for Helth to Doug Everingham, and not really anything clear on what to do with the other two. Would it be too much hassle to somehow unbundle and partially relist? Seems to me like that'd be ridiculously over the top... so I haven't touched it. Sorry :( casualdejekyll 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that's over-the-top at all. But then I'm an admin deep-diving on things very few people care about, and have been criticized before for treating Wikipedia too much like a bureaucracy. Another option would be "Retarget Minister for Helth to Doug Everingham, no consensus on the rest without prejudice against renomination" if you don't want to do it yourself. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- True, and {{Done}}. casualdejekyll 18:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Casualdejekyll, I would suggest either creating the nomination yourself or just relisting it, because I doubt anyone else will step up and nominate it. (It's been a while since I've closed RfDs, but I think the norm there was 3 relists (perhaps I'm mistaken).) — Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- True, and {{Done}}. casualdejekyll 18:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that's over-the-top at all. But then I'm an admin deep-diving on things very few people care about, and have been criticized before for treating Wikipedia too much like a bureaucracy. Another option would be "Retarget Minister for Helth to Doug Everingham, no consensus on the rest without prejudice against renomination" if you don't want to do it yourself. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 517 days ago on 23 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: {{Not done}} - I've relisted instead. I find nothing to go off here. casualdejekyll 18:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oh well ... I guess relisting a discussion that's been open since June isn't as bad as you think since there are others that have been open since April above. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 514 days ago on 26 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 511 days ago on 30 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} as no consensus. casualdejekyll 18:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Casualdejekyll: For that one, you probably want to employ no consensus, retarget since no one supported the status quo. See WP:NCRET for details. Other than that, I want to offer a thanks for helping out! -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Tavix - I'm not immensely familiar with the non-AfD XfD areas, so I didn't know that was a thing. I'll keep it in mind going forward. casualdejekyll 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Casualdejekyll: For that one, you probably want to employ no consensus, retarget since no one supported the status quo. See WP:NCRET for details. Other than that, I want to offer a thanks for helping out! -- Tavix (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 495 days ago on 15 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, relisted. There's no consensus here, but the redirect doesn't really lead to anything at all, so closing as no consensus would be absolutely pointless. casualdejekyll 19:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 580 days ago on 21 April 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor bibliomaniac15. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 495 days ago on 15 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor casualdejekyll. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 514 days ago on 26 June 2023) Discussion has died off; while not a formal RfC, it was widely attended and held on a prominent board - I believe a consensus can be determined from it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 471 days ago on 8 August 2023) Is after 7 days and seems to be WP:SNOWing. Just need an uninvolved admin closer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 493 days ago on 17 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor King of Hearts. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 489 days ago on 21 July 2023) AfD got accidentally de-transcluded from the log so was missed by the standard AfD closure process. Normally I relist in these cases but I'm WP:INVOLVED here, so someone else needs to handle it. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 461 days ago on 18 August 2023) Requesting an admin to assess consensus. Orientls (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Lourdes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 567 days ago on 4 May 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 544 days ago on 27 May 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 514 days ago on 26 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 510 days ago on 30 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 505 days ago on 5 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 506 days ago on 5 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 497 days ago on 13 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 516 days ago on 25 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: {{done}} Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 499 days ago on 11 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: {{Done}} Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 495 days ago on 15 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 493 days ago on 17 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 536 days ago on 5 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Edward-Woodrow. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 488 days ago on 23 July 2023) I would attempt a close myself, but I am involved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 455 days ago on 25 August 2023) Requesting assessment and potential early close (some arguments have been made to support that outcome). A smart kitten (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Waggers. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 517 days ago on 23 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 495 days ago on 15 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Edward-Woodrow. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 463 days ago on 17 August 2023) Close review appears to have reached a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Szmenderowiecki. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 508 days ago on 2 July 2023) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on non-free videos? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not done ...how is one supposed to close an RfC that's been archived? Still, it appears to be a clear and obvious consensus that video files can, in fact, meet NFCC#3 - so long as they contain the minimum necessary video to convey the necessary information (and that is somewhat subjective and best determined on a case-by-case basis). casualdejekyll 16:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've unarchived the RfC to allow for closure. I think a close would be useful as the consensus is not clear to me without reading every word of the discussion. Unlike some other RfCs, there are no bolded "support" or "oppose" comments that make it clear what the consensus is without reading every word of the discussion. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 593 days ago on 9 April 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 500 days ago on 11 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 482 days ago on 28 July 2023) Ad nauseam WP:PROFRINGE propaganda. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 480 days ago on 30 July 2023) I know, I know. While you will likely find this discussion amusing and/or lame, please do not let that sentiment get in the way of fairly assessing both sides' arguments and arriving at a thoughtful closing statement — bearing in mind the many WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and WP:ITSFUNNY arguments. While this RfC may seem on the surface to be time-wasting drama over something trivial, it is an important discussion that will set a precedent for future conflicts. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would think closing requests should be neutral in tone. InfiniteNexus has been anything but during the RfC, and with this biased thumb-on-the-scale closing request the water has arguably been muddied enough for any editor to just close the RfC as no consensus. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: My request specifically urged the closer to assess the RfC in a neutral way and be wary of both sides' ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT comments. How was that non-neutral? Your suggestion that
the water has arguably been muddied enough for any editor to just close the RfC as no consensus
, on the other hand, is blatantly non-neutral. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)- You mentioned some guidelines and left out others (a hint-hint nudge-nudge application of unbiasness?). Then your quotes "While you will likely find this discussion amusing and/or lame" and "While this RfC may seem on the surface to be time-wasting drama over something trivial," add to this nudging. A neutral request here is essential, that ship has sailed. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Those shortcuts were the ones most commonly present in the RfC. IDONTLIKEIT is an argument put forth by many who !voted support, just like how ILIKEIT is an argument put forth by many who !voted oppose. The other two quotes was to avoid a non-neutral close where the closer slacks off because they think this is funny or absurd. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- You mentioned some guidelines and left out others (a hint-hint nudge-nudge application of unbiasness?). Then your quotes "While you will likely find this discussion amusing and/or lame" and "While this RfC may seem on the surface to be time-wasting drama over something trivial," add to this nudging. A neutral request here is essential, that ship has sailed. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: My request specifically urged the closer to assess the RfC in a neutral way and be wary of both sides' ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT comments. How was that non-neutral? Your suggestion that
- Doing.... For reference, I agree with Randy Kryn that the fragment
bearing in mind the many WP:IJUSTLIKEIT, WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and WP:ITSFUNNY arguments
should not have been included in line with the requirement that the request is neutrally worded. However, please trust that I have ignored it and will not let it bias my conclusions. BilledMammal (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 499 days ago on 12 July 2023) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Request for comment for Hong Kong or Hong Kong, China?? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 500 days ago on 10 July 2023) This MOS:NATIONALITY RfC never had a proper close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- To editor Nemov: please include the talk page title in the link so editors can find the discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, I forgot to double check the link. Should be good now. Nemov (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy pings: @Nemov, @Paine Ellsworth. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 564 days ago on 7 May 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. There was no reason for this to be open for four months.... CycloneYoris and Duckmather, getting rid of an old log page is not a valid reason to relist. casualdejekyll 22:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Casualdejekyll: Uh, I relisted this discussion back in June, so I'm not sure why you're pinging me? CycloneYoris talk! 22:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 496 days ago on 15 July 2023) For any of these CfDs I would be willing to help with implementation if someone else does the close, but I'm either WP:INVOLVED or don't feel competent to close it myself. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery - I've decided to try to get over my fear of CfDs and close this one, but could you implement the outcome? (The outcome was to containerize the category and move all loose articles to a new, different category.) I'd like it if you also were the one to drop the template and "done=yes" on Closure requests (or anyone else who implements the closure, for that matter). Sorry for the bother, but I'm still scared of categories 😅 casualdejekyll 21:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've listed it at WP:CFDWM for the regulars there to process. This can be marked as {{done}}, and thank you for braving the area - too few people do that as you can tell. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 766 days ago on 17 October 2022) Could any uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for a merge of Environmentalism and Environmental movement. Klbrain (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping: @Klbrain InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 532 days ago on 8 June 2023) Looks like there's a consensus to get this discussion over with, but a formal closure still seems desired. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Please note, there are nearly identical discussions (nearly all with identical outcomes) at:
- Cheers! BD2412 T 02:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Partly done. I've closed Haley, Hutchinson, Williamson, and Scott as the proposal clearly failing. Doing... the other two, whose results are more complicated. casualdejekyll 20:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)- I've just closed West to merge the two campaign articles together. casualdejekyll 21:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- And finally {{Done}} as I've closed Elder as "no consensus". Took me almost an hour to get through this, wow! casualdejekyll 21:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 503 days ago on 8 July 2023) looks like discussion's been stale for nearly four weeks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping theleekycauldron. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 501 days ago on 9 July 2023) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#RFC on WikiProject Banner shell redesign? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 544 days ago on 27 May 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BDD. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 517 days ago on 23 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like "delete" to me, so we're gonna need an administrator to close this one casualdejekyll 21:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- I've looked at the discussion several times but couldn't convince myself there was a consensus to delete as opposed to redirect to Wiktionary. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} (as "Delete") by BDD. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 515 days ago on 25 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 498 days ago on 13 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BDD. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 506 days ago on 4 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 505 days ago on 5 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Tavix. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 1244 days ago on 26 June 2021)
QuicoleJR (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; @QuicoleJR closed as no consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 577 days ago on 25 April 2023) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; @voorts clear consensus not to merge. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 452 days ago on 27 August 2023) Been open for a week. The two subsections are probably ready for closing. Probably need an admin since sanctions are involved. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by two other editors. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 499 days ago on 11 July 2023) Last comments were made in late July. This is a controversial article and closing the discussion will solve the dispute on whether to use "right-wing to far-right" or just "far-right" in the infobox. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; closed as a rough consensus in favor. Courtesy ping @Vacant0 InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 489 days ago on 21 July 2023) -- Tavix (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 475 days ago on 5 August 2023) It's been about a month since this was opened, and the responses have slowed to a crawl. I think the consensus is clear in the discussion, so I don't think it will be particularly difficult to close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; there's a clear consensus. Courtesy ping @Hemiauchenia:. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 472 days ago on 7 August 2023) This will require a closer experienced with WP:BLP. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- Nemov - I was about to bring you closure, but then I noticed this has only been open 24 days. This doesn't have to run a full 30 days but is there some reason it can't wait a bit? My very cursory glance suggests that, were it to close now, it would probably close as No Consensus. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, I was just getting it on the list as it approaches 30 days. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 489 days ago on 21 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 483 days ago on 27 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 451 days ago on 28 August 2023) Discussion has stale however would like an uninvolved editor to close it properly and also implement the relevant changes. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
- I can't tell if I'm hallucinating, or the template's wrong, but I personally think that it's a bit too early to come here for this discussion. 9 days is VERY short. I would suggest a closure around 14 at minimum, and often try to wait out the full 30 days. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per InvadingInvader. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 522 days ago on 18 June 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- This one can be considered on hold. I'm still sorting out the alt rename targets. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's been open for 2 months, how long will this take. We really shouldn't have a culture of CfDs remaining open this long. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 505 days ago on 5 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Utopes. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 490 days ago on 20 July 2023), the tag has expired, about two months ago :) GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to GoodDay. BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 462 days ago on 17 August 2023) It's been 11 days since the last comment and we're near 30 days. This is ready to be closed. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to Nemov. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 468 days ago on 11 August 2023) I think we're ready for a close. Consensus seems clear, no new opinions have been listed for a bit now and discussion seems to have died down. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping to InvadingInvader. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 445 days ago on 3 September 2023) The discussion has been open for more than 7 days without opposition (it received no comment). Thus, per WP:RMNOMIN I ask that the RM be carried out. Veverve (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by EggRoll97 (talk · contribs). SilverLocust 💬 19:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 469 days ago on 10 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 466 days ago on 14 August 2023) An experienced closer is requested to evaluate consensus at this three-part RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 467 days ago on 13 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Edward-Woodrow. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 461 days ago on 18 August 2023) Could someone take a look and close this RFC. PackMecEng (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 477 days ago on 3 August 2023) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 490 days ago on 21 July 2023) No new comment in almost a month. Mixed views and consensus. --148.252.129.158 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 475 days ago on 5 August 2023) Perhaps doesn't need a close but perhaps it does, even if a silly discussion or dispute. Based on some discussion, I think a close might be helpful. Andre🚐 01:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Incredible close. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 466 days ago on 14 August 2023) Discussion has come to a natural end with no new comments in the last six days and would benefit from a formal close. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Stevie fae Scotland. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 459 days ago on 20 August 2023) This is ready to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
RfC on Vanguard
(Initiated 456 days ago on 24 August 2023) The initiation date represents the start of a discussion that concluded with the consensus to place Vanguard in WP:MREL. This RfC was then initiated in order to formally implement the consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @The Gnome: - {{done}} I closed the original discussion around the time you removed the original close request. starship.paint (RUN) 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 485 days ago on 25 July 2023) Duckmather (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Jalapeño. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 803 days ago on 10 September 2022) Could any uninvolved editor assess the consensus for/against a merge of Clinical mental health counseling and Counseling psychology? Klbrain (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} due to staleness of the thread. RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 462 days ago on 17 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 456 days ago on 24 August 2023) The discussion reached a compromise consensus six days after being initiated, without any further objections or discussion posted up. An administrator is invited to close down the discussion accordingly. Discussion has been moved to this archive. -The Gnome (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
- Archived – see #414 Vanguard (Nigeria). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, closed. starship.paint (RUN) 13:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 450 days ago on 29 August 2023) – Virtually all of the DYK regulars are involved, so we need an outsider to close this. The actual question to be answered starts at WT:DYK#Call for a decision. I agree with Narutolovehinata5's comment in Special:Diff/1176198598 that this close should concentrate on the narrow question of whether we should run the hook and leave alone the broader question of how we handle COI in general. RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 443 days ago on 5 September 2023) This RfC has not seen new comments in 9 days, and consensus appears clear. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 748 days ago on 4 November 2022) Could any uninvolved editor assess the consensus for/against a merge of al-Majdal, Tiberias and Magdala? Klbrain (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: - closed by GenQuest. starship.paint (RUN) 14:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} starship.paint (RUN) 03:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 480 days ago on 30 July 2023) Discussion seems ready to close. HappyWith (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} This didn't really need a formal closure as the outcome was obvious. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 515 days ago on 25 June 2023) originally initiated 25 June 2023. The previous close was vacated and the RFC re-opened on 13 August 2023. Discussion has now dried up, and a close is needed. Note to the closer, the discussion is broken up across the two sections, a result of it being re-opened. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
- @ActivelyDisinterested: {{close}}. Per your note, I considered the whole of the discussion on the present RSN page, including what was there before the reopening. (non-admin closure) —siroχo 07:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks siroχo. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 08:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 503 days ago on 8 July 2023) After the previous closure was vacated, this RfC is once again in need of closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by HJ Mitchell. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 05:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 451 days ago on 28 August 2023) This is approaching 30 days an is ready for a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 485 days ago on 25 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 471 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 471 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 463 days ago on 16 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 457 days ago on 22 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Qwerfjkl yesterday. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 13:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 457 days ago on 22 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 429 days ago on 19 September 2023) —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 06:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would also appreciate a closure of this discussion (and possibly a reopening of another, between Options 1 and 3). This discussion has only been open for about a week, but the consensus seems to be that either Option 1 or Option 3 would be a significant improvement over the current title. I feel that it's appropriate to move the page now, to either Option 1 or Option 3, and let the discussion between those two options continue. ErrorDestroyer 08:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Trilletrollet and ErrorDestroyer: {{done}} by No such user. starship.paint (RUN) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 463 days ago on 16 August 2023) Would be good to get this closed so this can get added to WP:RSP. The discussion was somewhat contentious, so it would be good to have at least a mildly experienced closer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- This just got archived, but it would still be good to get a close on this one. —siroχo 05:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- I unarchived it, but seconding the request for a close. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia and Alyo: {{done}}. BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 454 days ago on 25 August 2023) The discussion immediately moved into alternate directions for the article, so needs an experienced and uninvolved editor to close. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 499 days ago on 11 July 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 469 days ago on 11 August 2023) This is a split proposal. I did not participate in this discussion, but I've edited this article heavily and feel too involved to close this myself. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... —siroχo 07:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Aoi: {{done}} (non-admin closure) —siroχo 08:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 476 days ago on 4 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21#Injuries in netball. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by CycloneYoris. starship.paint (RUN) 03:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 434 days ago on 14 September 2023) It seems eligible for speedy close, because of a related AfD was closed as keep: Derna dam collapses. fgnievinski (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 462 days ago on 17 August 2023) This discussion has gone on for quite a while and has now stalled. It would be good to get some direction from someone uninvolved so the article can evolve appropriately. Vontheri (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... —siroχo 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Vontheri: {{done}} (non-admin closure) —siroχo 03:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 615 days ago on 18 March 2023) Stale split discussion czar 15:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... —siroχo 00:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Czar: {{done}} (non-admin closure) —siroχo 01:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 453 days ago on 27 August 2023) There's been plenty of discussion on this topic and it will require an experienced editor to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC template on this has been recently removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 05:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 454 days ago on 25 August 2023) Unopposed proposal seemingly requiring highly technical implementation. Most recent comment apart from unarchival by proposer was 9 September. Folly Mox (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- If this requires technical assistance to properly do a close that you don't do here, please just point me in the right direction. :) Either ping me or leave a note on my talk page. BOZ (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: would you be able to close this and/or implement the technical bits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs to be closed since there's no dispute, and anyway I shouldn't close a discussion I participated in. I also don't think I need to implement anything right now - someone should just go ahead with SilverLocust's suggestion. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Who can do that? BOZ (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Didn't SilverLocust already explain that? Anyone can create {{Refideas editnotce}}. Any template editor, page mover, or admin can deploy it to a specific page. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh! OK, I did not realize that I could do that. I went ahead and created it. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I moved it to Refideas editnotice with the 'i'. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oops. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, and thanks. I added it to more than 20 articles as a test, but I am not sure if I did that part correctly. BOZ (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Let's move this discussion to User talk:BOZ#Edit notice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, and thanks. I added it to more than 20 articles as a test, but I am not sure if I did that part correctly. BOZ (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oops. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I moved it to Refideas editnotice with the 'i'. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh! OK, I did not realize that I could do that. I went ahead and created it. BOZ (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Didn't SilverLocust already explain that? Anyone can create {{Refideas editnotce}}. Any template editor, page mover, or admin can deploy it to a specific page. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Who can do that? BOZ (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs to be closed since there's no dispute, and anyway I shouldn't close a discussion I participated in. I also don't think I need to implement anything right now - someone should just go ahead with SilverLocust's suggestion. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Pppery: would you be able to close this and/or implement the technical bits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} for bot. This seems to be running its course elsewhere and does not require a formal closure. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 423 days ago on 26 September 2023) This RFC hasn't ended its 30-day run, but however this RFC is unanimous for option A, and hasn't received a new comment in nearly a week, dus making it eligible for WP:snow meaning that it can be closed down early. 4me689 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 452 days ago on 28 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BD2412. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 606 days ago on 26 March 2023) (despite the age and topic this shouldn't actually be that hard to close) -sche (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... —siroχo 08:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @-sche: {{done}} —siroχo 09:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 471 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 26#Coach Lombardi. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Utopes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 461 days ago on 18 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Spartaz. — Frostly (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 461 days ago on 19 August 2023) user:A smart kittenmeow 13:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted Wikipedia:Redirects for _discussion/Log/2023 September 27#MathematicsAndStatistics starship.paint (RUN) 04:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Why do people keep relisting discussions that have already been open for more than a month? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- That one was only a second relist, and the discussion after the first relist was productive, so I don't have any issue with it personally. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why do people keep relisting discussions that have already been open for more than a month? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 452 days ago on 27 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor J947. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 448 days ago on 31 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)