Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37
 | 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
(Initiated 420 days ago on 28 September 2023) This is an RM, but I'm listing it here because it would be very helpful for an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 466 days ago on 13 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Kpratter. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 462 days ago on 17 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Kpratter. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 468 days ago on 11 August 2023) Please also advise whether editors should start a follow-up RfC on whether to deprecate minor edits entirely. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Bumping. It would be appreciated if someone could close this ASAP, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BusterD. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 428 days ago on 20 September 2023) Requested move that's been open for a few weeks. No new participants in several days. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 959 days ago on 8 April 2022) Discussion is very old, seems to be ready for closure by an uninvolved editor. HappyWith (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 473 days ago on 6 August 2023) The discussion came to a natural end, but as the issue is contentious we'd benefit from someone uninvolved assessing the consensus. Tercer (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 453 days ago on 27 August 2023) Needs formal close, proposing policy, discussion seems to have cooled off. —siroχo 07:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 435 days ago on 13 September 2023) Would benefit from being assessed by an uninvolved editor. 00:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria (talk • contribs)
Doing... —siroχo 07:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 472 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 1710 days ago on 18 March 2020) Necrothread that was dug up for some reason and now just kinda' going nowhere. Thanks - wolf 04:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 447 days ago on 2 September 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 406 days ago on 12 October 2023) Lengthy, unfocused WP:SOAPBOXING, complaints about having edits to a different article reverted, and unsubstantiated claims of "political bias", all in violation of WP:TALKNO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 432 days ago on 16 September 2023) Discussion... or rather votes have died down for weeks. Should be determined by an uninvolved editor. --George Ho (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 444 days ago on 4 September 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by BD2412 (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 441 days ago on 7 September 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Ceyockey. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 438 days ago on 10 September 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Ceyockey. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 426 days ago on 22 September 2023) This discussion concerns a proposal to move an article from Bluesky Social to Bluesky (currently a redirect to a disambiguation page). There hasn't been any new discussion in several days, and the opinions are varied. A non-involved editor's perspective would be much appreciated in closing this; many thanks. 🌌 VintageNebula (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{tick}} Closed by estar8806. SilverLocust 💬 11:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 410 days ago on 8 October 2023) Move request for a more specific title, been going on for a week and a half, clearly no consensus. Esszet (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor robertsky. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 451 days ago on 29 August 2023) RfC tag expired and is ready to formally close (required as it proposes a change to a guideline). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 443 days ago on 5 September 2023) Discussion has run for the requested month with little participation. Since the bot removed the RfC tag and in the absence of any meaningful participation, the editors have begun arguing again over how to proceed and further discussion is unlikely to lead to results. Closer should address which summary is more appropriate per current WP:PLOT and WP:PLOTSUMNOT standards. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Only one editor has !voted; I've asked the two editors commenting in the discussion if they wish to !vote before I make the close. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Both editors have !voted. Not surprisingly, we've each voted for our version. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Given that BilledMammal has deactivated their account, we need a new closer for this. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, been busy on other areas of the encyclopedia and this slipped my mind. I'll go and close it now. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Given that BilledMammal has deactivated their account, we need a new closer for this. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Both editors have !voted. Not surprisingly, we've each voted for our version. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 427 days ago on 22 September 2023) This discussion is a bit confusing. The bolded count is 6 support and 5 oppose, but one oppose could be read as neutral and there are 3 unbolded discussants two of which point to September 17 bolded votes in a prior discussion as their current unamended opinion in support. A third unbolded is an oppose. Potentially a count of opinions could be viewed as 8 to 5 with a neutral. I am thus not sure whether it is no consensus or a consensus. There has only been one new discussant in the last 5 days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Withdrawn-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- In which case, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 406 days ago on 12 October 2023) — Move request with 172 comments/67 people. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 403 days ago on 15 October 2023) Requested move has been open for over a week, and has had over 100 votes. Leaving it open for much longer is likely to be unproductive, and given how prominent the page is we probably should probably try to get it closed and the notice box removed quickly. BilledMammal (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ProcrastinatingReader. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 674 days ago on 18 January 2023) Question on describing the notability of the subject prominently in the lead. —Michael Z. 14:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 446 days ago on 2 September 2023) This could use a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 428 days ago on 21 September 2023) Could someone take a look and close this RFC please. PackMecEng (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 422 days ago on 26 September 2023) This is a WP:SNOW. I closed it off after a week, as an involved editor, when it was clear that the majority consensus was 2 to 1 against the proposal. However I was reverted. It's now been over two weeks and if anything majority consensus has gone further against the proposal. Even though consensus is abundantly clear, can we please get an uninvolved editor to close this off as this is a contentious topic area. TarnishedPathtalk 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} 900-word analysis posted, suggestions made for preventing an exact re-run, and discussion boxed up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 441 days ago on 8 September 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Estar8806. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 472 days ago on 8 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 449 days ago on 30 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 428 days ago on 20 September 2023) Could we have a close please as this seems to died down now. Things to consider: Right now we have many sports related articles with a standardized leading capital after the ndash for at least a decade. MOS has no specific clause on how we would render this. The closer needs to address whether there is consensus to keep/curtail that method and whether there is consensus to add or not add a specific clause to MOS. I hope that sums it up. Experienced editor please on this contentious issue. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 403 days ago on 15 October 2023) This is a contentious discussion about whether a certain video should be included in the article. It seems to have died down. There is a lot to read. Cheers. Riposte97 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, because apparently I'm some kind of masochist.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 464 days ago on 15 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Any takers? This discussion really shouldn't be that hard to close - the consensus has become quite clear but almost all of the regular CfD closers are involved. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Galobtter (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 769 days ago on 15 October 2022) Not sure if an RFC tag was actually added, but discussion ceased long ago, looking for an uninvolved closer. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why, though? The outcome was "no consensus to make the disputed change" and it's a year old. How would it help for me to type that in a hat box?—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- My reading is different than yours, I'm involved, it makes clear that the discussion is over for future readers who might stumble across it. There's more reasons to close it than not (in fact, the only reason not to close it appears to be "it's a year old"). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- As you wish. :) {{done}}—S Marshall T/C 15:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- As you wish. :) {{done}}—S Marshall T/C 15:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- My reading is different than yours, I'm involved, it makes clear that the discussion is over for future readers who might stumble across it. There's more reasons to close it than not (in fact, the only reason not to close it appears to be "it's a year old"). —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 440 days ago on 8 September 2023) Should this article have a section on or mention Belenkaya's reprimand by the FIDE Ethics Commission? Chessxid (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 431 days ago on 17 September 2023) No new comments for over a week, currently oldest RfC in the noticeboard. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Banks Irk. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 457 days ago on 22 August 2023) Duckmather (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted (pointlessly IMO) to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 21#👨💻 * Pppery * it has begun... 04:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted again to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 30#👨💻. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- And that is the story of RfD... J947 † edits 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Well, now there's an RfC about the criteria for existence of emoji redirects, which may or may not come to a superseding conclusion. What a time sink these emoji redirects are. (– wbm1058 (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- And that is the story of RfD... J947 † edits 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Ymblanter. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 454 days ago on 26 August 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 444 days ago on 5 September 2023) The discussion died down three weeks ago and the consensus is clear. I would be very grateful if someone helped wrap this up. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 427 days ago on 21 September 2023) A closing summary that is concrete, specific, and unambiguous would be appreciated. About 10 minutes to read everything in this section (~30 comments from 6 editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 419 days ago on 29 September 2023) Unclear consensus from an expired RFC. Sadly even the end date of the RFC is now being edit warred over: please end the process as soon as possible. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- This request came less than 10 minutes after I extended the RFC two weeks and the editor also reverted my edit. Giving this a couple more weeks can't hurt. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the last vote was nine days ago and the conversation is completely stale, I'm not sure why or how edit warring for it to remain stale even longer is a constructive step. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why waiting a couple of more weeks will hurt, but since you think it's stale feel free to mention the RFC in Village Pump or other avenues. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- For someone who claims they only got involved in IB RFCs because you don't want them to clog up the RFC process, dragging out a dead thread way beyond any constructive usefulness is just dramah mongering. Still, each to their own. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- And, just as a reminder, you posted on this at the village pump on 30 September. How many more times to do you to clog up that noticeboard with the same request? - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why waiting a couple of more weeks will hurt, but since you think it's stale feel free to mention the RFC in Village Pump or other avenues. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the last vote was nine days ago and the conversation is completely stale, I'm not sure why or how edit warring for it to remain stale even longer is a constructive step. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 388 days ago on 31 October 2023) Requesting a procedural close from an uninvolved editor. The nominator seems to have slightly misunderstood the scope of an RfC, and the discussion might be better if moved to RSN. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 1250 days ago on 21 June 2021) This RfC is over two years old, but the issue is still in dispute – see Talk:Murder of Jean McConville#Marian Price and Gerry Adams, November 2023. --Scolaire (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 456 days ago on 24 August 2023) RfC regarding if Belarus should be in the article infobox and if so how as the supported by line has been deprecated by this previous RfC: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict&diff=prev&oldid=1166117665. At the end of this RfC there is a discussion about wether a no consensus result should end with removal or maintaining of the current status quo. BogLogs (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Quite a challenging one, I'm not surprised at all that that lingered unclosed for a while.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 442 days ago on 6 September 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Jenks24. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 389 days ago on 29 October 2023) – Consensus reached please move Al Jazeera to Al Jazeera arabic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al_Jazeera Gsgdd (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor robertsky P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 416 days ago on 3 October 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Wugapodes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 456 days ago on 24 August 2023) RfC tag expired and discussion has slowed. Please keep in mind that there is a similar but differently worded question in the subsection of the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just following up on this.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: {{done}} by Onetwothreeip. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome. Thanks for the update! Prcc27 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: {{done}} by Onetwothreeip. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, I have closed both subsections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 435 days ago on 13 September 2023) This has come up again so a formal close looks like it's necessary for this discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 403 days ago on 16 October 2023) Discussion stale. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 403 days ago on 16 October 2023) – Asking for procedural restart as the RfC options were edited midway through, making the discussion hard to follow. Awesome Aasim 23:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 208#RfC about the criteria for existence of emoji redirects. Editor Awesome Aasim, feel free to restart. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 395 days ago on 23 October 2023) – Requesting close as genuine discussion has ceased and heavy socking identified. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Pincrete. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 409 days ago on 9 October 2023)
Please review this discussion, which had now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by OwenX. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 430 days ago on 19 September 2023) This has been run for more than a month now. It should either getting nowhere or somewhere by now. – robertsky (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Bensci54. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 434 days ago on 15 September 2023) We've had quite a bit of discussion on this, could an uninvolved editor close it? Thank you. starship .paint (RUN) 12:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- Note that this has been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 415#NYT and LGBT-related subjects (yet again). VickKiang (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- This has been listed for over a month. I do not believe it requires a formal close, but I will not mark it as such as I am involved as a participant. —siro χ o 05:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 426 days ago on 23 September 2023) Discussion has halted. The closer should be familiar with the Good Article criteria. Practical instructions can be found at the top of WP:GAR. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 399 days ago on 20 October 2023) This ANI thread has been open for more than three weeks now. I tried to formalize what looked like an earlier consensus on the 7th in the hopes this could be wrapped up, and that has attracted some new opposition, so I want to be clear that this isn't an attempt to push through my proposal (I no longer believe it has consensus). Just... four weeks at ANI is too long for this. asilvering (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rockstone35. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 440 days ago on 9 September 2023) Requesting an uninvolved closer. Note that some editors do not want replacing, but are okay with adding. starship .paint (RUN) 12:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 433 days ago on 16 September 2023) The last vote was made in September, however, the discussion continued until last week, and it has died down since then. This RfC will need a proper, third-party closure because this article is controversial. To the editor who plans to close this RfC, please read the survey and discussion carefully, to determine the actual consensus of the RfC. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 403 days ago on 15 October 2023) No new participants in several days, and only one new participant in the past ~three weeks. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Seconding a call for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} @ActivelyDisinterested @Red-tailed hawk (non-admin closure) —siroχo 04:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 412 days ago on 7 October 2023) Discussion has died out, but could do with formal closure. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 208#Temporary moratorium on new proposals regarding deletion, notability and related matters. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I feel like this proposal is something of a moot point anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 424 days ago on 24 September 2023) Only one new comment in the last week. There is circa 50k of discussion to read including 90 numbered votes, This needs an experienced closer with time to do a lot of reading and the time to write a strong closing summary. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've requested input at that RFC if my three earlier comments disqualify me from closing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Steelpillow. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 416 days ago on 3 October 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by myself Mach61 (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 418 days ago on 30 September 2023) The consensus seems unclear. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 415 days ago on 3 October 2023) Prcc27 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 408 days ago on 10 October 2023) No new participants since Oct 23rd. Maybe it should be advertised in WP:CENT instead of closure, I'd be happy to do so if people think number of participants is too low for a closure. Ladsgroupoverleg 01:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 408 days ago on 11 October 2023) No comments from new editors in over two weeks. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Second request for closure – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 405 days ago on 13 October 2023) Bot has removed the RfC template. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 404 days ago on 15 October 2023) Last vote was 7 days ago and discussion is now just back and forth between editors who have already voted and who aren't going to convince either side of anything. This needs a line under it it. Can an uninvolved editor please close this contentious RfC. TarnishedPathtalk 01:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: The bot has removed the RfC template for this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, yes: more than thirty days have elapsed; Legobot is working as designed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 403 days ago on 15 October 2023) No new comments in over three weeks. NoonIcarus (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 393 days ago on 26 October 2023) Started three weeks ago and no comments since 7 November, probably needs closure now. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 391 days ago on 28 October 2023) Discussion has slowed with the last vote occurring 2 days ago. RfC has been going for 18 days. Consensus is clear with six for, one against and one alternative suggestion to the RfC proposal. It is questionable whether this will get any further discussion any time soon given that the subject is not very well known outside of those interested in this niche area of Australian politics. Can an uninvolved editor please review this. TarnishedPathtalk 10:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: {{done}}, though this really didn't need formal closure. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 00:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste apologies, I'll be more bold in the future. TarnishedPathtalk 00:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 385 days ago on 3 November 2023) No new comments in the last 12 days, doesn't look like it will get any further input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 387 days ago on 1 November 2023) – Discussion has died down (and the section is archived) but its still unclear on whether it is more NPOV to use "killed" instead of "massacred" in the context of this war.VR talk 05:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{Resolved}} Archived, so the issue is moot. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 394 days ago on 25 October 2023) Discussion has died. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy response! Perhaps some could try and tackle the öther types" requests below? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 393 days ago on 26 October 2023) Discussion seems to have ended. I am also involved on this RfC on a contentious topic. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 405 days ago on 14 October 2023)
Please, somebody, close this. (I initially made an early close as a hopeless WP:TRAINWRECK, given there are three hundred and fifty or so nominations here, but my close got contested and reverted.) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- Since then, several of the involved pages have been deleted or struck off the list. Have fun. (Probably best to use AWB or JWB). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I mean, I'd close it myself, but I've !voted, so it would be kind of stupid to make a bad involved close that would be reverted (thus the second). Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
In progress. This is going to take a minute, though. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)- {{Done}}. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 374 days ago on 13 November 2023) Consensus has been reached after 7 days, all people participating in the discussion agreed to the move. Please close the discussion and conduct the move, thanks. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by User:BegbertBiggs. @SouthParkFan2006: Move requests generally do not need to be listed here, as there is a list of requests ready for closing at WP:RM. Only if a request remained unclosed a very long time after the initial seven days, would I consider listing it here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for informing me about that. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 485 days ago on 26 July 2023) I need an administrator to close this merge discussion. Dream Focus 04:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not an admin, but {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 405 days ago on 14 October 2023) - This is a relatively short thread. Riposte97 (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 392 days ago on 27 October 2023) It has become tedious (attacks upon WP:PSCI policy). tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – not sure what you want here; all I see is an overlong, rambling discussion between you and another editor. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 388 days ago on 30 October 2023) Shenanigans about materialism, going nowhere. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – cf. above. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 485 days ago on 25 July 2023) Either this has come to a consensus, or it won’t, but either way knowing if a merge is warranted from an external source would be helpful --47.21.192.218 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 400 days ago on 19 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 397 days ago on 22 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by HouseBlaster. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 413 days ago on 6 October 2023) Protected edit request became a full-scale discussion, and appears to have stalled. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
{{tick}}Request marked as "not done" (and "answered") by Firefangledfeathers. SilverLocust 💬 11:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Reopened I marked the edit request as answered because edit requests are only for uncontroversial changes, and it was evident that the requested change was controversial. After much discussion, it's reasonable for participants to request outside consensus assessment and closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- This has been archived, so I will mark this as {{close}}. SilverLocust 💬 06:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 393 days ago on 25 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 406 days ago on 13 October 2023) This RfC has been dragging on for more than a month. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- This has several comments just today, not ready for closing yet in my opinion. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 402 days ago on 17 October 2023) No formal closure received after expired tag. Attempting to implement my interpretation of consensus led to a revert. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 395 days ago on 23 October 2023) nableezy - 15:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Important for the closing editor to take note of the mass canvassing of editors opposed to the proposed addition. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 402 days ago on 16 October 2023)
Four proposed options for retargetting, besides !votes to keep or delete. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 392 days ago on 26 October 2023) The discussion is ripe for closure, there has been little activity in the past two weeks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 388 days ago on 31 October 2023) Only three !votes in the last two weeks. Ready to be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 416 days ago on 2 October 2023) No comments in twenty-one days, could an uninvolved editor assess? HappyWith (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 387 days ago on 31 October 2023) I would ask the interested admin to close RfC question in the Christopher Columbus article. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 675 days ago on 16 January 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge Bigod's rebellion into Pilgrimage of Grace. Klbrain (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Closure unnecessary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 384 days ago on 3 November 2023) This is ready for a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 359 days ago on 28 November 2023) Consensus is very clear but this does need a formal closure. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 382 days ago on 5 November 2023) estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BD2412 NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 390 days ago on 29 October 2023) Opened more than five weeks ago and the discussion has quieted down, so can somebody close it? Gawaon (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 365 days ago on 23 November 2023) The consensus is clear here, but an uninvolved admin is needed to implement the outcome. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rosguill. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 382 days ago on 5 November 2023) The RFC has expired. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping to GoodDay. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 377 days ago on 10 November 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 394 days ago on 24 October 2023) Could someone please formally close this RFC? Thank you. Grandmaster 10:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Grandmaster: {{done}} - Consensus to add content to body of article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 393 days ago on 26 October 2023) Last activity was 24 November and RfC notice has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: {{done}} - Consensus to retain content in lead of article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 542 days ago on 29 May 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge Type 3 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. Klbrain (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- This proposal was never mentioned at the target page, Alzheimer's disease. Given that is a much more frequently viewed article, I have tagged it in the hope of getting more engagement / evidence of consensus about this proposed merge. Mgp28 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 646 days ago on 14 February 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge Statue of Émilie Gamelin into Émilie Gamelin. Klbrain (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 455 days ago on 25 August 2023) – the merger discussion about People's Council of the Luhansk People's Republic has been active since August. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 421 days ago on 27 September 2023) - Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge and/or rename CollegeHumor? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this discussion at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This is not an Rfc or any type of formal discussion, just a discussion twice collapsed and removed by experienced editors as NOTFORUM, and immediately restored by a determined, newbie OP. I am involved, so won't collapse again. Outside eyes needed; closure requested if appropriate. User:Valereee has recent experience at the Talk page, and may be a good choice as first point of contact. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Noting that this has been collapsed again, here, by an admin. Rapid response very much appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- (for the bot) {{done}} by ScottishFinnishRadish. Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 10:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 381 days ago on 6 November 2023) WP:PROFRINGE, ad nauseam. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor McSly. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 384 days ago on 3 November 2023) Getting close to 30 days. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 405 days ago on 14 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- I never understand why people relist discussions when they've already been open for far longer than they should have been. Oh well ... * Pppery * it has begun... 03:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 383 days ago on 4 November 2023) Discussion has died down substantially. Closure/archiving may be warranted at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- This has auto-archived, so I think we can mark this {{not done}}: formal closure doesn't seem necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 404 days ago on 14 October 2023) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 375 days ago on 13 November 2023)
(Initiated 387 days ago on 1 November 2023)
Discussion was initiated November 1, no new activity since December 3. BD2412 T 18:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 376 days ago on 12 November 2023) This is nearing 30 days and will require an experienced closer to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 341 days ago on 16 December 2023) This is a new RfC. Some early commenters are calling for it to be closed due to a lack of WP:RFCBEFORE. I'm bringing that request here for review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I concur that this should be summarily closed and delisted.—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 341 days ago on 16 December 2023) Merge discussion started by a now blocked WP:SOCK. Only the SOCK was in support of the merge, with myself (involved) and other editor opposed. Quick closure is requested. I am involved, hence why I am bringing it here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 370 days ago on 17 November 2023) Posting here after being instructed to over at RPP, to clarify any consensus (or lack thereof) and stop an ongoing edit war. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 389 days ago on 29 October 2023) Discussion has not had a new comment in about 24 days as of writing. A firm closure would be appreciated to avoid ambiguity. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 381 days ago on 7 November 2023) Discussion has slowed. Last vote was 30 November. Last comment was 30 November. Consensus is not clear. Can someone please close for us. Thank you. TarnishedPathtalk 10:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 357 days ago on 1 December 2023) 66 comments, 14 people. Discussion on whether we should remove a conversion factor from words to kb to simplify a table. Most of the participants commented before the first subsection, but a long discussion ensued on whether we need minimum participant numbers. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand why "avoiding an RFC" is a stated goal. A RFC is the tool we use to make PAG change decisions. VQuakr (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Ajpolino. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 416 days ago on 3 October 2023) Closure recently overturned. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with the editors at the close review who noted that a close is not needed here, particularly your comment @Aaron Liu that everything "will be passed on" to WMF "regardless". voorts (talk/contributions) 03:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. In the circumstances I think it's better for us to summarize it for the WMF, rather than allow them to do so for themselves.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Aaron Liu: {{done}} Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 394 days ago on 24 October 2023)
It keeps going to the archive and no one has left a comment. Parham wiki (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 370 days ago on 18 November 2023) Discussion has slowed, with last vote occurring 12th December. Consensus is unclear (if there is one). Can someone please close this for us. TarnishedPathtalk 10:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 643 days ago on 18 February 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus to merge New Zealand Day Act 1973 into Waitangi Day Acts. Klbrain (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Klbrain: this is going to need more people chiming in. Have you considered posting this to WP:NZ? Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. That project has had the proposal listed on their talk page since February, but I've just put up a new notice requesting further comments. Let's hope that that generates some more views! Klbrain (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 377 days ago on 11 November 2023) nableezy - 22:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 382 days ago on 6 November 2023) Appears to have achieved a consensus, needs uninvolved closure. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} is not needed per WP:MERGECLOSE. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 374 days ago on 13 November 2023) – We really need an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus and close this long-standing discussion. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 363 days ago on 24 November 2023) RFC expired with little discussion.2601:249:9301:D570:80F7:1F2A:D53D:8B42 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} There was no discussion and this does not need to be closed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 340 days ago on 18 December 2023) Messy RfC that hasn't had any discussion since December 23, and seems to have reached a consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 408 days ago on 10 October 2023) Refreshingly for anything BI-related this is a fairly cordial discussion about what to do with two related articles, British Isles naming and Terminology of the British Isles. The discussion has been (deliberately) low key so as to not attract a pile-on from people with apparently strong opinions but little intention of working on the pages. Please could an uninvolved editor close the discussion and assess whether there's enough of a consensus to do anything in particular. WaggersTALK 15:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 347 days ago on 10 December 2023)
Request any admin to assess the consensus regarding my topic ban appeal. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 375 days ago on 13 November 2023) —Michael Z. 21:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 356 days ago on 1 December 2023) Discussion has slowed with, when requesting, the last meaningful comment being 14 days prior. As the initiator and involved editor of the RfC, I do not see a clear consensus and am requesting it be closed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- RfCs are allowed to run for at least 30 days before closure is requested. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC has now surpassed 30 days, with no more meaningful conversation or additions since my initial closure request. Closure is still requested regarding the discussion and how to proceed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Frostly (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 413 days ago on 6 October 2023) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus on treating the taxon Bison as a genus distinct from Bos? 89.206.112.14 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
{{Not done}} Archived on the 9th December, the last comment was 17 October. I don't see the need for a formal closure which will require restoring the archived discussion which had minimal participation. Whether or not article titles should follow IUCN nomenclature or otherwise requires wider consensus from the relevant wikiprojects. Any local consensus must follow this. Polyamorph (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 368 days ago on 19 November 2023) 42 comments, 7 people, no comment for two days. To the surprise of both sides, there was firm disagreement. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 331 days ago on 27 December 2023) The following RM has reached consensus. Someone need to close it ASAP! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 08:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Doneby @Aviram7. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- This has not been closed yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently I mixed them up. But now it has. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Hilst. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 331 days ago on 27 December 2023) The following RM has reached consensus. Someone need to close it ASAP! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 08:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Hilst. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 330 days ago on 27 December 2023) The following RM has reached consensus. Someone need to close it ASAP! – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 08:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Aviram7. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 342 days ago on 15 December 2023) Please relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Snowball, which was not properly listed at AFD for December 22, 2023. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}: relisted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 376 days ago on 11 November 2023) RfC open for 30 days, little discussion for the past week but votes are balanced and no consensus. Contentious topic area under discretionary sanctions. Recent bold edit asserting a consensus was reverted. Carleas (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 353 days ago on 5 December 2023) This is ready to be closed. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 352 days ago on 5 December 2023) The tag has expired & we haven't had input for days. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 343 days ago on 15 December 2023) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423 § RFC: The Cradle? This closure request was created in response to the discussion at WT:RSN § RFC archived without closure. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger Can one really edit an archive? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's acceptable for archived RfCs to be formally closed on an archive page, especially in response to a closure request, when the main talk or noticeboard page is highly active. If the closer wants to bring the closure to the attention of other interested editors, the closer can unarchive the RfC and move it back to the top of the main talk or noticeboard page while closing it. — Newslinger talk 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this makes sense then. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger {{done}} (diff) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's acceptable for archived RfCs to be formally closed on an archive page, especially in response to a closure request, when the main talk or noticeboard page is highly active. If the closer wants to bring the closure to the attention of other interested editors, the closer can unarchive the RfC and move it back to the top of the main talk or noticeboard page while closing it. — Newslinger talk 03:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 335 days ago on 22 December 2023) The discussion is probably ready for assessment. Further activity unlikely to happen or to change result--NØ 16:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 369 days ago on 18 November 2023) Two RFCs under one banner for the FAC process (a rough knowledge of the FAC process may be advantageous, but it's not necessary). The last comment or !vote was on 12 December. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by ProcrastinatingReader. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 364 days ago on 24 November 2023) RfC once again archived without closure - there's a clear consensus to leave as WP:GREL, I'd close it myself but I was an involved editor. The Kip 05:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- @The Kip This is the correct section right? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#The Daily Telegraph (UK) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, that’s it. The Kip 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we close that? Just let it archive without closure, and it stays WP:GREL.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it'd be to further back up GREL status, in order to definitively add it to the perennial sources list entry for DT. The Kip 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the Daily Telegraph's entry on WP:RSP, you'll see a footnote (currently reference "n") which links prior discussions about it. Right now there are 18 such discussions. Numbers 13 and 17 were closed (13 by problematic and now site-banned editor Jytdog), and none of the others needed closure. Look---if you want, I'll happily close this, because as you rightly say, the community's decision is very obvious. So obvious that it's easier to close it than to have a long discussion with you about whether to close it... but I'm noticing a tendency to want formal, uninvolved closure for every RfC, and a widespread view that people who participated in the RfC can't close it (despite the fourth limb of WP:RFCEND), so I just thought I'd query that point with you.I'm not trying to be difficult and if, after considering this, you're still hesitant or would [prefer/feel more comfortable with] someone uninvolved writing it up, then just say so. I will be very happy to type "once again, Wikipedians reach a clear consensus that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source" in a hatbox for you.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall You should go ahead with the close since you're uninvolved :P Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you look at the Daily Telegraph's entry on WP:RSP, you'll see a footnote (currently reference "n") which links prior discussions about it. Right now there are 18 such discussions. Numbers 13 and 17 were closed (13 by problematic and now site-banned editor Jytdog), and none of the others needed closure. Look---if you want, I'll happily close this, because as you rightly say, the community's decision is very obvious. So obvious that it's easier to close it than to have a long discussion with you about whether to close it... but I'm noticing a tendency to want formal, uninvolved closure for every RfC, and a widespread view that people who participated in the RfC can't close it (despite the fourth limb of WP:RFCEND), so I just thought I'd query that point with you.I'm not trying to be difficult and if, after considering this, you're still hesitant or would [prefer/feel more comfortable with] someone uninvolved writing it up, then just say so. I will be very happy to type "once again, Wikipedians reach a clear consensus that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source" in a hatbox for you.—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose it'd be to further back up GREL status, in order to definitively add it to the perennial sources list entry for DT. The Kip 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why would we close that? Just let it archive without closure, and it stays WP:GREL.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, that’s it. The Kip 22:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 349 days ago on 8 December 2023) The RFC tag has expired. -- GreenC 21:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to GreenC; that was a surprisingly difficult one to close. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 351 days ago on 6 December 2023) - Should this page be deleted or marked historical? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: {{done}} closed as delete. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 435 days ago on 13 September 2023) Consensus is clear, but removing the parameters from the template requires admin tools. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- If the consensus is clear, a formal close should not be needed. You can use {{edit template-protected}} on the article talk page to request implementation. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I made an edit request with the template. This can be closed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Jähmefyysikko: In which case, {{resolved}} (you need that template, or one of the others shown at the top, to mark this thread for archiving). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. I made an edit request with the template. This can be closed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 389 days ago on 29 October 2023) The RFC has been open for nearly two full months. It was recently closed, but then reopened & re-tagged. Recommend, it be closed (again), by an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I originally closed this. It was re-opened and re-tagged because an uninvolved editor pointed out on my talk page (User talk:Voorts § Your close at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years) that this was not properly notified to relevant pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why weren't these notification concerns brought forward two months ago, or even a month ago? I'm concerned about a messy precedent being set, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't comment on others' motives or lack thereof, but proper notice is important and I don't think it sets a messy precedent to reopen the discussion to get more eyes on it. As I noted over at your subsection of the RfC, there's NORUSH. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- The RFC's been open now for 'two' months. Calling for its close after that amount of time, isn't rushing. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can't comment on others' motives or lack thereof, but proper notice is important and I don't think it sets a messy precedent to reopen the discussion to get more eyes on it. As I noted over at your subsection of the RfC, there's NORUSH. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why weren't these notification concerns brought forward two months ago, or even a month ago? I'm concerned about a messy precedent being set, that's all. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is a very strange RfC -- it seems like an attempt to establish consensus for sweeping changes across hundreds to thousands of articles (including some very high-traffic ones), being carried out exclusively on the talk page of an obscure WikiProject talk page, without having notified any of the editors on said articles. The reasoning given for this is that it would be too difficult to do so. But if it's too difficult to find consensus for a mass change, I think that indicates the change shouldn't be made -- not that it should be done in some random back-alley WikiProject nobody's ever heard of and then enforced as a higher WP:CONLEVEL. I have strong doubts about the validity and scope of any claimed consensus. The situation seems akin to if I got into an argument at Talk:Space Shuttle about whether there should be a picture of a monkey instead of a picture of the Space Shuttle, then went to "WikiProject Space Shuttles" and made an RfC for me and five people to agree with each other, then closed it and went back to Space Shuttle and put a monkey in the infobox and said that nobody was allowed to disagree with it or revert me because I was implementing a higher CONLEVEL. jp×g🗯️ 14:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just to note that, per Xtools, WikiProject Years is watched by 189 people (compared to 226 for 2023); there are now over 100 comments in the RfC; and the following notifications have been made: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. As I noted in the discussion, I don't have the chops to notify every single year, decade, century, and millennium page, but someone who can do that should if they think it's needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this is a proposal that would have a (relatively) wide impact (at least within the topic area), and there’s a real possibility of the consensus being disputed on the basis of insufficient notification, would it be worth listing it on T:CENT? Best, —a smart kitten[meow] 22:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing as (so far) nobody has re-closed the RFC, then notifying T:CENT would be acceptable. But it would be nice, to have an idea when the RFC will be closed. We can't leave it open indefinitely. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Added to T:CENT. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- Seeing as (so far) nobody has re-closed the RFC, then notifying T:CENT would be acceptable. But it would be nice, to have an idea when the RFC will be closed. We can't leave it open indefinitely. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- If this is a proposal that would have a (relatively) wide impact (at least within the topic area), and there’s a real possibility of the consensus being disputed on the basis of insufficient notification, would it be worth listing it on T:CENT? Best, —a smart kitten[meow] 22:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just to note that, per Xtools, WikiProject Years is watched by 189 people (compared to 226 for 2023); there are now over 100 comments in the RfC; and the following notifications have been made: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. As I noted in the discussion, I don't have the chops to notify every single year, decade, century, and millennium page, but someone who can do that should if they think it's needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- GoodDay, what would be the reason that an administrator should close this discussion? Simply because it would affect many articles? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Because the RFC has been open (with exception of a few hours) for over two months & counting. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- That is not a reason to have an admin close something, particularly since this was reopened so that more people could weigh in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- It would have been closed earlier if you hadn't recommended it be closed by an administrator. Is there a reason why an administrator should close the discussion, rather than any other editor? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just to give some background: I closed this RfC, then reopened it when other editors came to my talk page and noted that there wasn't enough notice of the discussion, hence why there's a long discussion above about adding this to T:CENT. There is no reason to rush to closing this when several editors have requested an opportunity to weigh in and the discussion is still ongoing. Asking for an admin to close the discussion right now rather than waiting for the process to play it seems like forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, now that I have !voted, I won't be closing this again, but I don't see a reason why this fairly routine content dispute needs to be closed by an admin. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: I'm a tad frustrated with the entire process, at the moment. I've never seen an RFC handled this way before. PS - Please, no more questions, as I won't be answering them here. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: No problem. I would have closed this myself but I deferred to your judgement on requiring an administrator.
- Does anyone else believe this should be closed by an administrator, rather than any uninvolved editor? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- The reason is clear now. A non-admin closed the discussion again, weeks after the request was made but just after a few late votes had come in to swing it slightly the other way. This is exactly what User:GoodDay predicted would happen. Deb (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just to give some background: I closed this RfC, then reopened it when other editors came to my talk page and noted that there wasn't enough notice of the discussion, hence why there's a long discussion above about adding this to T:CENT. There is no reason to rush to closing this when several editors have requested an opportunity to weigh in and the discussion is still ongoing. Asking for an admin to close the discussion right now rather than waiting for the process to play it seems like forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Because the RFC has been open (with exception of a few hours) for over two months & counting. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Commentary on comment placement bug (now fixed)
|
|---|
|
Over 70 days & counting. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 352 days ago on 5 December 2023) 30 day period has concluded, needs closure.98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Original closure was requested by a now blocked WP:SOCK master. However, I'll go ahead and second the requested closure. As the RfC starter, I am not going to close it due to being involved, but if someone could close this stub-RfC (4 comments + struck SOCK comment), that would be appreciated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 350 days ago on 8 December 2023) The RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 387 days ago on 31 October 2023) No comment have been made on this Infobox RfC since November of last year. Requesting closure after a determination on whether a clear consensus has been reached regarding whether there should be an inclusion of an infobox to the article. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 345 days ago on 12 December 2023) Want to assess rough consensus as the RfC tag has expired. The disussion can potentially be relisted to remove the options that obviously failed. Awesome Aasim 16:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 389 days ago on 29 October 2023) I am surprised such small articles have generated such a complicated discussion. Please could someone close this merge discussion thanks. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 328 days ago on 29 December 2023) While an initial discussion and subsequent edit war started in November/early December, I've pinned the "start" of the discussion to when an uninvolved admin fully protected the article due to the edit war and requested involved editors come to a consensus. Their preference is for an uninvolved editor to close the discussion; the discussion itself has also shifted towards determining the exact phrasing to use (see subsection Talk:The Marvels#Proposed phrasing). The discussion has slowed down with no new comments in the past few days and the page protection is set to expire at 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} @Sariel Xilo: It looks like there was almost unanimous consensus for option D and the change has been implemented. The only negative feedback has been from the IP editor who was bludgeoning the conversation. I don't think a formal close is needed just to assuage an editor who refused to get the MOS:ACCLAIM point. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. Just wanted to verify since the article was fully protected when I listed it here. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 362 days ago on 25 November 2023) This issue has been discussed unresolved on this talk page for years, and has now been submitting for RfC. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
- Best to wait until the RFC tag expires (in a week's time), before closing. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree, but the overall discussion predates this particular RfC significantly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The tag has expired. We need closure. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 356 days ago on 1 December 2023) RfC ended and closure is needed. This is a CTOPS article which received 216,000+ views in the last month, so preferable an administrator needs to close this, especially as there was reported canvassing involved from a blocked sock-master. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 336 days ago on 22 December 2023) Been running for 23 days, seems to be stalling out. QueenofHearts 07:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 335 days ago on 22 December 2023) Please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Star Mississippi. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 363 days ago on 25 November 2023) Open for over a month, with no comments for a week. Leaning slightly towards moving. — mw (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- There are now some more recent comments, and it was relisted on January 2. SilverLocust 💬 04:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I closed this as no consensus but then relisted it after a discussion on my talk page. I suggest waiting for the relisting to elapse on the 9 Jan before closing. Polyamorph (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 325 days ago on 1 January 2024) Near unanimous move request needs closure. oknazevad (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Zl Jony. Frostly (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 317 days ago on 9 January 2024) – A WP:SNOW close is warranted. It's obvious what the outcome is going to be, and an off-topic discussion is causing tensions to rise. Jfire (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Primefac. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 342 days ago on 15 December 2023) Please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} It will get closed on the 17th -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 327 days ago on 30 December 2023) Can someone please close wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Can an uninvolved admin please step in over toxicity and BATTLEGROUND at darts-related pages?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} Closed by EvergreenFir. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 344 days ago on 13 December 2023) Been 28 days since listing, comments slowing down. Ready for closure soon. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Doing.... This is a very long discussion and is going to take me a fair amount of time to close (and if I don't finish it by tomorrow it likely won't get done until Monday) as I expect to have to read the entire discussion twice (and other parts more than that), but I have begun actively working on it. Barkeep49 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 621 days ago on 11 March 2023) Been sitting since March 2023 and I don't feel comfortable doing an involved close. QueenofHearts 06:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 482 days ago on 29 July 2023) Sitting since May, don't feel comfortable involved closing this. QueenofHearts 21:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 324 days ago on 3 January 2024) Weighted strongly towards merge, but it's not unanimous. Recent comments are mostly about what content should be included in the merge rather than specific opposition to the merge overall. As the proposer, I think I have to request someone else take care of closing the discussion despite a week elapsing and a decent consensus forming. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 336 days ago on 22 December 2023) This will need a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to Nemov. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 337 days ago on 21 December 2023) Just need an administrator to close the rest of the discussions on this page. The result of all of the remaining discussions seems clear, but the result cannot be performed by non-admins per WP:BADNAC. Steel1943 (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that's now done. Thanks Tamzin for getting those last few discussions closed, as well as Jay for chipping away at them beforehand. Steel1943 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}}. (template needed so that bot will know to archive this entry) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 328 days ago on 29 December 2023) Seems to have reached a consensus, discussion stalled.160.72.80.50 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 355 days ago on 3 December 2023) Very contentious topic. A closure from an uninvolved editor with history background is needed. Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 326 days ago on 31 December 2023) Hi, and hope you're well. Usually, I'd not request closure of a move just relisted a few days ago (8 January in this case), but the discussion is starting to devolve, so it may be better to determine consensus and close before it becomes completely off-topic (and more uncivil). (WP:RMCI allows closure of most requests after a week, regardless of relists.) Thanks! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Relisted. (Again.) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 320 days ago on 6 January 2024) A RM discussion on a CTOPS article, which needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 305 days ago on 21 January 2024) Just a plain ol' discussion, with OP still arguing after nine separate editors universally panned their proposal. WP:SATISFY long since passed. Just needs a closure to save everyone time and hassle. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Acroterion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 309 days ago on 17 January 2024) This seems to have fallen off everybody's radar. Not much activity of late. I think it's time to close this one way or the other. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 349 days ago on 8 December 2023) No activity for a couple of weeks. Request closure regarding how WP:BLP is applied once a person dies.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tamzin. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 337 days ago on 20 December 2023) The RfC tag has expired & input has ended. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 321 days ago on 5 January 2024) Editors have articulated positions on both sides. A closure from an uninvolved editor is needed. Thanks. N2e (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to N2e. BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 321 days ago on 6 January 2024) WP:Requests for comment/Capitalization of NFL draft article titles (which was originally at WP:VPPOL#RfC on capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc. but got moved to its own page) has been running in circles for a while, with no new input and lots of calls to close it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's also spilled over into certain user talk pages with all manner of accusations being hurled around. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've volunteered to close, but 30 days have not yet passed and input is still being given. Any other uninvolved admins who wish to join the closure are welcome. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've read through and would also be happy to (co-)close; I don't think it's a particularly difficult one, to be honest. I'll leave for @The Wordsmith: as you volunteered first, but feel free to email if you wish to co-close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's a particularly difficult one, to be honest
: I'll venture to guess each side of the argument feels that way too. —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, the RFC template has expired. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor The Wordsmith. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 318 days ago on 8 January 2024) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 581 days ago on 20 April 2023) Don't feel comfortable involved closing this. QueenofHearts 20:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would feel more comfortable after you read WP:MERGECLOSE? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, already aware of it. QueenofHearts 18:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Klbrain. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 498 days ago on 13 July 2023) QueenofHearts 05:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Close}} as "no consensus to merge". -- Beland (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 319 days ago on 7 January 2024) Please review or relist this move discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Relisted voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the archiving bot: {{done}} by Voorts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 317 days ago on 9 January 2024) Please review or relist this move discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Relisted voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the archiving bot: {{done}} by Voorts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware I should mark it as done after relisting. Thank you for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the archiving bot: {{done}} by Voorts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 309 days ago on 18 January 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor The ed17. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 307 days ago on 19 January 2024) Please review or relist this move discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 356 days ago on 2 December 2023) This RFC will require an veteran closer with experience in WP:BLP. Previous RFC close was overturned[1] and it was reopened for comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Veteran, wizened, and aged closer with long, weary BLP experience reporting for duty, sir.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 31 January 2024) Discussion is still ongoing somewhat, though has slowed. Experienced closer requested as this RM has been subject to off-wiki canvassing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 309 days ago on 18 January 2024) Sunnya343 (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 300 days ago on 26 January 2024) starship.paint (RUN) 16:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ScottishFinnishRadish. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 291 days ago on 5 February 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 325 days ago on 2 January 2024) Would it please be possible to close this RFC, which was started over a month ago and has not been commented on for the past two weeks? Parishan (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 319 days ago on 8 January 2024) Last !vote on January 27, activity has died down. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 319 days ago on 8 January 2024) Last !vote Jan 29th, consensus apparently reached. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 315 days ago on 11 January 2024) - RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. RFC does not need formal closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish:, What if an objector shows up & claims the issue is still open, because there was no formal closure? GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's 5 to essentially 0. You point them to the clear consensus at the discussion. A colored box around a discussion isn't what makes a clear consensus, it's the discussion within where the consensus resides. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well an editor changed "resides" to "lives". Anyways, if that doesn't change anything? then alright. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's 5 to essentially 0. You point them to the clear consensus at the discussion. A colored box around a discussion isn't what makes a clear consensus, it's the discussion within where the consensus resides. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- @ScottishFinnishRadish:, What if an objector shows up & claims the issue is still open, because there was no formal closure? GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 346 days ago on 11 December 2023) 48 comments, 16 people in discussion. A minor talkpage issue, but the good people involved, admins included, seems to think there is a bit of principle involved. Discussion had died by 14 December, but took off again at 27 January. Now seems to be dying again, and most arguments appear to have been stated at least once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
| Hatting exchange with blocked LTA IP user. Cf. 174.212.97.191 and feel free to email me for further evidence of WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 325 days ago on 1 January 2024) 2 RFCs have stalled and are ready to close. Due to the nature of accusations that were made by 2 users (Æo, Ramos1990), a completely uninvolved editor who has never been contacted for closure by either user is requested to close both RFCs. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 301 days ago on 25 January 2024) Last vote was cast 18 days ago. No comments since then. Closure is warranted. Thank you. Aintabli (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sennecaster. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 279 days ago on 16 February 2024) Clear snow outcome: both editors need to drop the metaphorical stick, and no administrative action should occur. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much] 11:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- To editor Matrix: per the #3 billiard ball in the lead above, all these entries must be neutral. In the future please leave it to the closing admin to decide these things. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 529 days ago on 12 June 2023) Conversation has stalled with no apparent consensus. Please review, close, or relist. WuTang94 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Klbrain. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 529 days ago on 12 June 2023) Conversation has stalled, but the two commentors (including myself) seem content to merge this page to two places, similar to the outcome regarding Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe). WuTang94 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Klbrain. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 390 days ago on 28 October 2023) 101 edits by 17 users. Last !vote was November 6th. Contentious topic area. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 378 days ago on 9 November 2023) Discussion has stalled entirely with a split between opposing and weakly vouching for a merge. Requires an uninvolved editor to come to a conclusion about the result. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 300 days ago on 26 January 2024) Please relist or review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reply - Why was this not relisted to determine a course of action? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 321 days ago on 5 January 2024) – Merge discussion at Talk:2024 Russian presidential election#Merge discussion has been open since 5 January 2024, with no new contributions since 4 February 2024. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Satellizer el Bridget. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 335 days ago on 23 December 2023) Latest comments 3 February, discussion was archived by bot and restored.Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion was just restarted after I noticed that it was archived by the bot. I don't object to a close, but I think it would be preferable, since it was relisted, that the discussion resume for another week or so before closing. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ProcrastinatingReader. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 317 days ago on 10 January 2024) RM discussion I closed to try to reduce the massive backlog presently at RM. However, it's a controversial subject-area so I also indicated in my close that I'd vacate the close if requested and post here to request an admin close. Hence this appeal for an admin close here. FOARP (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Admin closure requested- {{done}} :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 285 days ago on 10 February 2024) This is an RfC in a contentious area of a currently fully protected page. There is a clear consensus, but a minority of editors are blocking almost every suggested edit to the page. The discussion has slowed and is ready to close. Last !Vote occurred 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC). Mkstokes (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{notdone}}, RFCs typically go for 30 days, and there isn't an overwhelming consensus to make a SNOW closure appropriate. nableezy - 16:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nableezy, as of 15:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 75% of the responses to the RfC are for adding the content. Please let me know what constitutes an "overwhelming consensus?" Mkstokes (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- nearly unanimous. nableezy - 18:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nableezy, as of 15:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) 75% of the responses to the RfC are for adding the content. Please let me know what constitutes an "overwhelming consensus?" Mkstokes (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 318 days ago on 8 January 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor SilkTork. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 318 days ago on 9 January 2024) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor SilkTork. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 365 days ago on 23 November 2023) nableezy - 18:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 304 days ago on 23 January 2024) Controversial RM in a contentious topic. NasssaNsertalk 02:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note – Due to the sheer length and controversial nature of this RM, I have made a similar notice at AN as well, see WP:AN#Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 23 January 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not an intimidating ask at all! {{done}} :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 283 days ago on 13 February 2024) Discussion is mostly getting to the point of people repeating themselves in circles, especially when adding in the two precursor discussions Talk:North_Korea#Hereditary_Dictatorship_take_2 and Talk:North_Korea#Government_Type_Infobox. Probably about time to move on. Sagflaps (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- @SagflapsThis is still receiving comments so closing it now is premature. Nemov (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Feel free to bring this back when 30 days have past. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 279 days ago on 16 February 2024) It appears to be snowing, and can probably be closed. This RfC, which was opened 15 minutes later on the same question but has received far less participation, should probably be closed at the same time. BilledMammal (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is rubbish, said RFC has no RFCbefore and the material was not even in dispute, the opener should do everyone a favor and close it themselves. Whereas the other RFC has a different subject matter, an RFCbefore and the material is in dispute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} @BilledMammal: I've closed the RfC linked in the title of this section. I've left the other one open for now, as there do still seem to be contributions being made to it and it's less of a SNOW situation at the moment. Feel free to make another request separately for that other RfC and I'm sure someone will take a look in a day or two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024). Lightly attended RFC, which is ready for closure. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Easy close. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 347 days ago on 10 December 2023) RFC in a contentious area, and any closer should be aware of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing for the canvassing at this RFC. nableezy - 19:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am open to closing this as part of a panel, if one or two other editors are willing to close as well. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: I'd be happy to help form said panel :) I'm not in a position to assess in full right now, but if you'd like to comb through it tomorrow, I'm around. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright then, theleekycauldron. I'm free tomorrow. Until then, other editors who wish to participate in the closure are invited to do so. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to nableezy. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright then, theleekycauldron. I'm free tomorrow. Until then, other editors who wish to participate in the closure are invited to do so. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 10:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: I'd be happy to help form said panel :) I'm not in a position to assess in full right now, but if you'd like to comb through it tomorrow, I'm around. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 293 days ago on 2 February 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
On hold per comments here. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 290 days ago on 5 February 2024) This RFC has been open for 26+ days now with an overwhelming majority supporting for the results to be either Russian victory or Russian victory with aftermath. Specifically, a 17 in favour vs 5 not in favour. Last activity from the RFC was over a week ago. Page needs a result as the Battle ended 9 months ago and needs immediate closure. 42Grunt (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not true, the last activity (as in "VOTE") was [[2]] today. But there does seem to be a consensus for D, and it may be OK to close it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you to close the RFC. Result needs to added as soon as possible. The battle is over months ago.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I note you HAVE NOW now also decided to vote, thus meaning another new post in that RFC today, its clearly not run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- He didn't contribute anything new to the discussion just adding his vote to the clear majority, most likely out of frustration. You started this thing and you yourself okayed to close it. So let it be done already. Ilya-42 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- No what I said was it may be OK to close it, despite some obvious issues with this close request (it would be up to the closer to decide it is OK to close it despite the mistakes here). Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- He didn't contribute anything new to the discussion just adding his vote to the clear majority, most likely out of frustration. You started this thing and you yourself okayed to close it. So let it be done already. Ilya-42 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I note you HAVE NOW now also decided to vote, thus meaning another new post in that RFC today, its clearly not run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with you to close the RFC. Result needs to added as soon as possible. The battle is over months ago.Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that there is another thread this is being actively discussed in as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 269 days ago on 27 February 2024) The block that's being reviewed, expired several days ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GoodDay this has been archived, do you still want it to be officially closed? Nemov (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemov: Archiving, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{nd}}: discussion archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 630 days ago on 3 March 2023) Nearing a year old, but comments are still trickling in. This is a contentious topic so it should be closed by an experienced editor. Can't close it myself as I participated. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 347 days ago on 10 December 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- This really needs to be closed. It's been open over two months, and is not developing further. Last !vote was a week ago, and the last before that a week earlier. This is just dragging out. As VPPOL-originated major RfCs go, the !vote section is comparatively short, and the bulk of the side discussion is between two editors about an alternative/variant proposal (which has some opposition and some support, but was not addressed by most commenters). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- This has been open way too long. I can do the close, but given the volume it'll take a while to sort through everything. I can probably have it done by tonight (US time), otherwise sometime tomorrow. @IOHANNVSVERVS: Thanks for making an attempt. Something like this probably falls under WP:BADNAC as "likely to be controversial", but it's good that someone at least tried to close this. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
DoneIOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)- I don't have an opinion on the conclusion of the close, but that RFC deserved something more thoughtful than a four word sentence. Nemov (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, maybe you're right. I lack experience. Thanks for the feedback and I'll refrain from closing any other discussions until I've looked into this aspect of closing further. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS: will you please self-revert the close and let someone more experienced close this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @IOHANNVSVERVS: will you please self-revert the close and let someone more experienced close this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, maybe you're right. I lack experience. Thanks for the feedback and I'll refrain from closing any other discussions until I've looked into this aspect of closing further. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have an opinion on the conclusion of the close, but that RFC deserved something more thoughtful than a four word sentence. Nemov (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I got distracted with other backlogs and forgot about this. Doing.... The WordsmithTalk to me 00:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 342 days ago on 16 December 2023) RfC in a contentious topic area. Malerisch (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please note that this will not be acted on until at least 30 days from the date that the RfC was opened, and perhaps longer if the discussion hasn't naturally died down by then. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- voorts, is there a strict rule that RfCs can only be closed after 30 days? I didn't see one in the rules above. One reason that I added this request is because I believe that the discussion has stabilized: there's only been one new !vote in the last week (or at least, that will be true in a few hours). Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a strict rule, but the only reasons to end an RfC before 30 days are if it's withdrawn, for procedural reasons, etc., not just because conversation is slowing down (and it hasn't really here; there's been a new !vote or two every few days). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- The 30-day period is also not a bright-line rule, it's mentioned purely because that's the point after which Legobot will remove the
{{rfc}}tag and delist the RfC statement from WP:RFC/HIST etc. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- voorts, is there a strict rule that RfCs can only be closed after 30 days? I didn't see one in the rules above. One reason that I added this request is because I believe that the discussion has stabilized: there's only been one new !vote in the last week (or at least, that will be true in a few hours). Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've looked at this with a view to closing and I've found it hard to work with. The RfC is framed as a binary choice between saying the victims were Bengalis and saying they're Bengali Hindus; but that's illogical because those options aren't mutually exclusive. Surely the article could explain that the victims were Bengalis, and particularly, disproportionately, but far from exclusively, Bengali Hindus; and that some Hindu nationalists have subsequently adopted the genocide for political purposes and framed it in ways that fit their preferred narrative. I wonder whether the locus of dispute is actually what to say in the infobox, which usually needs a one-word or two-word summary? If so then the RfC asked the wrong question.IMV analyzing that discussion as a closer, iff we treat the various participants as being in good faith, then the correct, policy-compliant, consensus-respecting outcome would be to say that there's no consensus about what to say in the "target" parameter in the infobox, so that parameter should be blanked, and that the lead shouldn't claim that the targets were Bengali Hindus but instead explain the true situation using more words than that.But unfortunately, that discussion is making my sock-sense tingle and I wouldn't be willing to say all those participants were in good faith. It's a contentious topic area with politically-motivated editors. The best way forward might be to re-run the RfC asking separate questions about the infobox and the lead paragraph. With a friendly sysop's help, you could set up the RfC on a semi-protected subpage, which I think would help to manage the disruption.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't view the dispute as primarily about the infobox—previous edit-warring was not particularly focused on the infobox, but also on the lead and the short description. Wikipedia:Requests for comment says that
[i]f you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question
. No one did that or raised any other issues with the RfC question, and only two editors (not including an IP) !voted for anything other than the two options presented, so I don't think that the RfC is framed poorly. - I'm not a fan of sockpuppetry or canvassing either, but I don't think that's a reason to invalidate an RfC entirely. For example, although this recent RfC in another contentious topic area also experienced canvassing, the closer wrote the following:
There was concern about canvassing, evaluating the concerns including checking the edit history of many individual editors it seems likely that canvassing did in small part affect the discussion. This does not mean we can't, with care, find a rough consensus in the discussion.
Template:Not a ballot says that consensusis gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes
. An IP editor has also pointed out this reddit discussion on the right-wing r/IndiaSpeaks subreddit, whose top comment directly links to the reddit thread mentioned by others and which received far more attention. Malerisch (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't view the dispute as primarily about the infobox—previous edit-warring was not particularly focused on the infobox, but also on the lead and the short description. Wikipedia:Requests for comment says that
- @S Marshall: just checking in to see what's going on with this close since it's been listed here a while. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've commented on how difficult it is to close, but I haven't volunteered to close it.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Working ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 330 days ago on 27 December 2023) As the title suggests, this RfC was a follow-up to a previous discussion. The RfC discussion covers WP:AT, WP:NCDAB, style/grammar, and accessibility. Last comment was on 3 February. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to voorts and SMcCandlish. — ♠Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 328 days ago on 29 December 2023) Discussion has slowed and this is ready to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Done- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)- You have participated in disputes in this topic area and as such shouldn’t be closing discussions, request you self revert and allow for another closer. nableezy - 17:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I thought uninvolved meant uninvolved in the specific discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, "involvement" means participation in any discussions in the topic area, especially the current war, as noted below. I appreciate your prompt correction of your good-faith error. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I thought uninvolved meant uninvolved in the specific discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have participated in disputes in this topic area and as such shouldn’t be closing discussions, request you self revert and allow for another closer. nableezy - 17:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Another involved editor, this time @Kashmiri has closed this RFC and archived it. Request you self revert as well. Nemov (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, if you have edited anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, much less this current war, you should not be closing RFCs in the topic area. nableezy - 18:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes he closed the discussion despite being clearly involved and then, a minute later, archived it! Amazing. I have left a note on User:Kashmiri's talk page requesting that he revert his "closure." Also I believe that the RfC should be reinstated and left open for a period of time, given that there has been a new development in this area (a UN report concerning the sexual assaults). Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- it's been open for two months, I think thats quite enough. nableezy - 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- A week or so more won't do any harm. I note that the last comment was just a day ago, so it's still active. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's been open for over 60 days. Stick a fork in this please. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- One sticks a fork in things that are done. This one is not. It's really quite active. Last !vote before the "close" was 3 March, and previous to that a spirited discussion in the Survey section. And now a UN report that could conceivably impact upon the outcome. This is why the drafters of WP:RFC, in their wisdom, gave editors the ability to relist RfCs. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The discussions around that topic have been highly active since October and will likely continue, but we should only extend RFCs if there's hope a consensus will form. This just seems to be dragging out a deadlock even longer. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The UN report may or may not change the consensus or lack of same. Prior to the two abortive closes, every single !vote took place prior to its release. Therefore a close now would be premature and I imagine the RfC would be restarted sooner rather than later. We've had RMs restart just about immediately and without significant news impacting the outcome. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The discussions around that topic have been highly active since October and will likely continue, but we should only extend RFCs if there's hope a consensus will form. This just seems to be dragging out a deadlock even longer. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- One sticks a fork in things that are done. This one is not. It's really quite active. Last !vote before the "close" was 3 March, and previous to that a spirited discussion in the Survey section. And now a UN report that could conceivably impact upon the outcome. This is why the drafters of WP:RFC, in their wisdom, gave editors the ability to relist RfCs. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's been open for over 60 days. Stick a fork in this please. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- A week or so more won't do any harm. I note that the last comment was just a day ago, so it's still active. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- it's been open for two months, I think thats quite enough. nableezy - 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}. With thanks to Coretheapple for his statement of position above, a close of this is clearly long overdue.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 325 days ago on 2 January 2024) Discussion has slowed and ready to close. JDiala (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 318 days ago on 9 January 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote occurred on the 15th of January. TarnishedPathtalk 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 318 days ago on 9 January 2024) BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 313 days ago on 14 January 2024) This discussion could use an official close as I suspect the question will come up again. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 304 days ago on 22 January 2024) nableezy - 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Nableezy - Nemov (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 302 days ago on 24 January 2024) I would like an RfC on designating Red Ventures unreliable closed and added to WP:RSP. [3] The consensus is decently clear but given the impact a formal close would be appreciated especially on whether it applies to print media. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) ~
- {{done}}. Discussion closed by Xymmax. The close still needs to be summarized and added to RSP. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Chess. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 290 days ago on 5 February 2024) Shouldn't be a super difficult close. IMO consensus is fairly obvious. Loki (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Very likely to be a contentious close and one which requires an admin with extensive experience of WP:BLP policies. WCMemail 17:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think it's a pretty easy close, actually. Loki (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is the large number of editors who see this as a WP:GREATWRONG issue and wishing to denounce Tim Hunt as a sexist misogynist. I can see many admins looking at the toxic nature of the discussion and wanting nothing to do with the closure and to be frank I wouldn't blame them. Applying our BLP policies and ignoring the out of policy arguments I suspect the result would be very different from the one that you earnestly expect. Not least of which being that a post hoc document written two weeks after an event is not the accurate transcript everyone is portraying it as. WCMemail 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's perfectly adequate reasoning for the RFC itself but in a close would be a WP:SUPERVOTE. Also this is absolutely not the place to re-litigate this RFC. Loki (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is the large number of editors who see this as a WP:GREATWRONG issue and wishing to denounce Tim Hunt as a sexist misogynist. I can see many admins looking at the toxic nature of the discussion and wanting nothing to do with the closure and to be frank I wouldn't blame them. Applying our BLP policies and ignoring the out of policy arguments I suspect the result would be very different from the one that you earnestly expect. Not least of which being that a post hoc document written two weeks after an event is not the accurate transcript everyone is portraying it as. WCMemail 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think it's a pretty easy close, actually. Loki (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 285 days ago on 10 February 2024) A clear consensus has been reached but the article is both contentious and under extended protection. It needs an unbiased, uninvolved admin to close to avoid further conflict. Mkstokes (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 283 days ago on 13 February 2024) I'm replacing this request, which got removed because the OP left it unsigned; but it's clearly an appropriate and valid closure request that needs an external closer.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 February 2024) Very low participation, but since the topic is a contentious one I am requesting a formal close by a non-involved editor before it is archived. Scolaire (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Scolaire: {{done}} JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024)
Most editors barring one agree that an alternative name of the ethnic group in question can also be included in the lede. Enough discussion had already gone on above it since 7 February 2024. I think it can be closed. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Request indepandant review since most editors that have agreed are associated with the group in dispute. Cossde (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 1 March 2024) ARBPIA topic area. As of this post, only one vote in the last week. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 457 days ago on 23 August 2023) The discussion on whether or not to split this page has been open for months with no administrator response and appears to have been passed by consensus. Discussion needs to be closed so the original proposition can be fulfilled. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion on whether or not to split this page has been open for months with no administrator response and appears to have been passed by consensus. Discussion needs to be closed so the original proposition can be fulfilled. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GlowstoneUnknown: {{done}} JML1148 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, that's greatly appreciated GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 386 days ago on 1 November 2023)
Discussion seems to have died down. -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 368 days ago on 20 November 2023) Nominator has withdrawn their proposal and asked for someone uninvolved to close the discussion, no new comments in over a month. Turnagra (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Turnagra: {{done}} JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you! Turnagra (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 349 days ago on 8 December 2023) Could use a third party to determine consensus if any. Discussion has ground to a halt at this point, with the last comment being on January 18.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Kung Fu Man: {{done}}. Are you going to merge the articles? Otherwise, place them at the merger holding cell. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 322 days ago on 4 January 2024) — There's a clear consensus to split the "Club career" and "International career" sections into a single new article, however, I'd like for an uninvolved editor to parse what the terms of the split should be according to consensus, since there were varying ideas introduced by those in support of the split as to how it should be conducted. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Restored again, pending a proper closure. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} There was only one !vote suggesting that they be split into separate articles, and the rest of the comments appeared to be generally about trimming things, but that can be done after the split as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 314 days ago on 13 January 2024)
Merge discussion that has gotten a (imo) bit messy. Sohom (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 300 days ago on 26 January 2024) Has run its course. 192.226.87.178 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 285 days ago on 10 February 2024) Ongoing for a month, stalled.96.250.92.78 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 283 days ago on 13 February 2024) It's been over two weeks, since RM was opened. It's been well attended & participation has sorta ended three days ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't anyone want to close the RM? GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's actually a huge backlog at WP:RM. Anyone available to work on closing some of those? Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BD2412 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just this one, though, not the huge backlog, which remains. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 276 days ago on 19 February 2024) Relatively short discussion involving two editors. Renaming discussion has been inactive for multiple days. Needs closure. AlbertBF-WIR (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 273 days ago on 22 February 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 25 February 2024) Discussion seems to have largely run its course. If enacted, I can lead the appropriate changes, since some are a bit complex & time consuming. Aza24 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Aza24: {{Done}}. starship.paint (RUN) 14:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) This RM has only been open for a day. But it's approximately 31 support, 10 oppose so is approaching WP:SNOW. It's also a current event. May be a candidate for a WP:IAR early closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- With that many opposes, I'm sceptical that it's appropriate to have such an early closure. It might not run the full 7 days, but I'd suggest giving it a few more at least. — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Take it to the RM
|
|---|
|
{{done}} by robertsky. nableezy - 13:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 257 days ago on 9 March 2024) 64 comments, 16 people in discussion, admins are involved. Vigorous WP:NFCC discussion, arguments seem to have been made at least once by now. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- !votes are still coming in, I think we can leave this one open a little longer. BilledMammal (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – editor Gråbergs Gråa Sång, this is an active RfC that could possibly go the full 30 days or more; therefore, it should not sit here. Feel free to resubmit on a later date. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 276 days ago on 20 February 2024) BilledMammal (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 251 days ago on 15 March 2024)
It's been a week. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Killarnee. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 295 days ago on 1 February 2024)
This is a long-term dispute with entrenched positions. I think this dispute is mostly about article scope. Please provide a summary that will be difficult for any of us to misunderstand (accidentally or otherwise). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: As far as I can tell, the identified discussion is not an RfC. It looks sort of like an RfC, but it is not following the RfC process and is not listed in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment. It is just an ordinary Talk page discussion. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: It was an RfC, but Legobot delisted it almost three weeks ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- RFCs are almost never listed here until after the bot has removed the tag (though there is no rule requiring that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- @BarrelProof: It was an RfC, but Legobot delisted it almost three weeks ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 520 days ago on 20 June 2023) Messy merge proposal, no cmts since July. QueenofHearts 04:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Resolved}} I think the discussion is sufficiently low-key, stale, and low-temperature that no closure is necessary, Queen of Hearts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 337 days ago on 20 December 2023) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 276 days ago on 20 February 2024) Well-attended RFC; discussion has slowed. Participants requested a formal close.--Trystan (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} TW 03:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Trystan: I am glad to say that this closure is completed, but there is still work to do regarding any parameters which would be appropriate to add to option B. Best of luck. TW 04:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 248 days ago on 18 March 2024) Discussion has slowed down. More support has been shown for moving the page than keeping the page as is Freee Contributor (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Robertsky. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 300 days ago on 26 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 26 February 2024) There's a unanimous consensus against the merge proposal. Discussion has died down and it needs to be closed by a third party to avoid dispute.---Petextrodon (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Objection: Issue is part of a broader issue of WP:NAT editing about Sri Lanka that needs independent review to ensure the content is written in an Encyclopedic. Cossde (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is about the merge proposal, not the nature of the content which you would have to take it to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I knew you would not agree to my closing a clear consensus which is why I requested an uninvolved party. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Petextrodon all posts here should be neutrally worded. Cossde, please note that continuing discussion here could be construed as disruptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) While the latest comment is from today, the discussion appears to have run its course. I do not trust myself to be able to close this discussion properly due to the sensitive nature of the topic at hand, as well as the length of the discussion, and would like to request a third-party take a look at it. Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 282 days ago on 14 February 2024) Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 25 February 2024) The RfC tag has expired, no new comments for over a week. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 292 days ago on 4 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 290 days ago on 5 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Opposed; it was just relisted a few hours ago by Estar8806. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 344 days ago on 14 December 2023) – Been open for a few months, needs closure. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion is stalled and could benefit from closure. 71.190.208.91 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 321 days ago on 6 January 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment was 13 January. TarnishedPathtalk 07:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: {{done}} by starship.paint (RUN) 03:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint, thankyou for a well considered close. I'd almost forgotten about this. TarnishedPathtalk 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 714 days ago on 8 December 2022) This split proposal has been open for a long time and needs a formal close. TarnishedPathtalk 10:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}}: not only has this split proposal been open for a long time, the consensus is obvious. Please see gold note one (
) near the top of this page. WP:SPLITCLOSE – be bold! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 311 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 268 days ago on 27 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 26 February 2024) Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) Frietjes (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Primefac. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 318 days ago on 8 January 2024) Phase I should have proposals where there is consensus picked out now so we can actually formally propose these improvements to the WMF. Awesome Aasim 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: I'd be interested in closing this. Just to clarify, for the 'Proposed changes' section, do you want just proposed changes from questions 3/4/5, or possible changes that can be discerned more indirectly fron questions 2/6? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JML1148 I kind of want to see if there are recurring themes in the Phase I part that can be the basis for Phase II. It is an open-ended survey, after all. :) Awesome Aasim 21:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: Thanks. I'll start work now. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Awesome Aasim: Thanks. I'll start work now. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @JML1148 I kind of want to see if there are recurring themes in the Phase I part that can be the basis for Phase II. It is an open-ended survey, after all. :) Awesome Aasim 21:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 262 days ago on 4 March 2024) Last comment about two weeks ago. Consensus apparently reached, but given this is a controversial topic, a formal close would be useful. This is a re-hash of an earlier close of Talk:COVID-19_pandemic/Archive_48#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14 closed by Combefere (talk · contribs) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 23 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 253 days ago on 13 March 2024) – As I said at WP:AN before being redirected here, the discussion in the main two threads has slowed to a near-halt, and the subsection I opened to ask for closure quickly turned into heavily-involved participants relitigating the debate. Resolution before the thread is archived would be preferable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that closure is a good idea. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Won't close myself since I made two comments in the Rachel Helps section. But the Thmazing section looks like a straightforward close and is ready, and the Rachel Helps section will be a complicated close but would really benefit from some kind of close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thmazing section closed by Drmies. Rachel Helps section still open. starship.paint (RUN) 02:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ScottishFinnishRadish. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 253 days ago on 13 March 2024) – Pretty clear consensus for a topic ban, just needs an admin to implement it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 243 days ago on 23 March 2024) – We're more than a week out from a discussion that I think has gotten all the voices it needs to hear. A close would be appreciated :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer sees consensus for a GAN TBAN I ask that you keep the subsection "Appeal for GAN TBAN exception for already actively reviewed GANs" open so that I can solicit more input from the participants. I suspect that editors did not comment simply because no sanction has been implemented yet. starship.paint (RUN) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Ingenuity :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 320 days ago on 7 January 2024) RSN discussion archived, needs a close.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) This discussion could use a formal close by an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 260 days ago on 7 March 2024) BilledMammal (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 353 days ago on 4 December 2023) – An IP keeps wasting our time with WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor MrOllie. This discussion is an edit request that was declined. If editors think they're being trolled, remember the internet adage: "Don't feed the trolls." P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 300 days ago on 26 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 288 days ago on 7 February 2024) Discussion hasn't had a new reply for almost a month, with clear consensus against (6 opposes, no supports). Gödel2200 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 281 days ago on 14 February 2024) – Requested move open for 1.5 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 253 days ago on 13 March 2024) The RFC tag has expired, after one month. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wasn't this just established in a close by @ScottishFinnishRadish:
There is clear consensus is to describe the monarch as residing in the United Kingdom
? To "describe" implies mention in the article. The close presumably was related to how the article should be worded, not to resolve a linguistic question amongst editors on the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC) - {{done}} GoodDay ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 239 days ago on 27 March 2024) – The discussion converged to a consensus. The reported user requested a closure on my talk page. NicolausPrime (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The discussion appears to have concluded; there are no replies in the past six days, and there appears to be a consensus. I second the request for closure. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thirding the request for closure. As someone who has been reported at various conduct noticeboards, a report hanging around for 20 days is nightmarish. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 273 days ago on 22 February 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 234 days ago on 1 April 2024) Would also appreciate the closing admin determining whether there is a consensus to title blacklist, in addition to whether there is a consensus to delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, and i'll leave it to you to implement the title blacklist, Pppery :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 23 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor bd2412. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 233 days ago on 3 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by NasssaNser theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 244 days ago on 23 March 2024) Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User: BD2412 . Natg 19 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Uhm, this was closed by editor ModernDayTrilobite. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Reubens (disambiguation) and Rubens (disambiguation) were separate requests; I closed the former as merging to the latter article, and ModernDayTrilobite closed the latter. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, editor BD2412! I was going by the above link to the particular RM that was closed by MDT. Thanks again for clarifyin'! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Reubens (disambiguation) and Rubens (disambiguation) were separate requests; I closed the former as merging to the latter article, and ModernDayTrilobite closed the latter. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Uhm, this was closed by editor ModernDayTrilobite. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 380 days ago on 7 November 2023) I mistakenly assumed an admin would automatically closure the RfC, so that's why the discussion has turned old. However, it stills needs a final result. Latest comment: 87 days ago and 16 editors involved in the discussion. --Azor (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 281 days ago on 14 February 2024) First time I've ever requested a close, please lmk if done wrong. Think conversation has slowed and it's been a while since it started. toobigtokale (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 248 days ago on 19 March 2024) Legobot has removed the RfC template. TarnishedPathtalk 11:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: {{Not done}}: not all discussions require a formal close. In this case, the consensus is obviously yes, so anyone should feel free to just go do it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fixing ping. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727, ok I wasn't sure given that even though the !votes were all the same there was dissent in the discussion. I'll close myself. Thanks. TarnishedPathtalk 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: Well, with a question as vague as "should this be trimmed," there's always going to be some variegation over the minutiae. Nevertheless, there was a clear consensus that it should be trimmed, and indeed it was trimmed partway through the discussion. If there are still questions over specific details of how that was implemented, another discussion can be had about those details. Otherwise, no closure is necessary at all; you can consider it to already have reached its natural conclusion and leave it there. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. TarnishedPathtalk 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath: Well, with a question as vague as "should this be trimmed," there's always going to be some variegation over the minutiae. Nevertheless, there was a clear consensus that it should be trimmed, and indeed it was trimmed partway through the discussion. If there are still questions over specific details of how that was implemented, another discussion can be had about those details. Otherwise, no closure is necessary at all; you can consider it to already have reached its natural conclusion and leave it there. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 247 days ago on 19 March 2024) Legobot has removed the RfC template. TarnishedPathtalk 06:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 242 days ago on 25 March 2024) Has been running for 10 days but discussion has slowed down considerably recently. Contentious topic, so requesting formal closure here. — Czello (music) 12:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 239 days ago on 27 March 2024) Discussion has slowed. 6 days since last vote. TarnishedPathtalk 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 289 days ago on 7 February 2024) Would like an assessment of consensus, or a relist if consensus is still unclear. Awesome Aasim 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)