Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 38
 | 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
(Initiated 250 days ago on 17 March 2024) Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Primefac. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 248 days ago on 18 March 2024) RFC tag has expired.Laxshen (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 247 days ago on 19 March 2024) RFC tag has expired.Laxshen (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 282 days ago on 13 February 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 February 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 274 days ago on 21 February 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 283 days ago on 12 February 2024) – Requested move open for several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 278 days ago on 17 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 277 days ago on 18 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 269 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 220 days ago on 15 April 2024) - Requested move has been untouched since 15 April, and consensus was achieved. Please close the move request and initiate the move, thank you. 50.245.38.157 (talk) 7:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 287 days ago on 9 February 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 222 days ago on 14 April 2024). I'm involved, but consensus looks pretty clear regarding the specific action. There have been no new comments for 4 days. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 280 days ago on 15 February 2024) As the first round of Phase I reaches 30 days in action, I'll be listing discussions here as they reach time. Once the final discussion has been closed, this heading can be archived. Proposals ripe for closing:
Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA, initiated at 02:19 (UTC) on 15 February 2024Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial), initiated at 03:00 (UTC) on 20 February 2024Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial), initiated at 11:33 (UTC) on 18 February 2024Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%, initiated on 1 March 2024Proposal 13: Admin elections, initiated at 05:53 (UTC) on 23 February 2024Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements, initiated on 23 February 2024Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions, initiated on 17:56 (UTC) on 27 February 2024Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process, initiated on 1 March 2024
Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've closed 3b and 7. I believe 13 and 14 are also overdue now too. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Updated, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly every proposal can now be closed. Soni (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- and I think now any and all can be closed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly every proposal can now be closed. Soni (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Updated, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- 4 was closed User:Wehwalt. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Proposal 24 was closed by AirshipJungleman29; marking this as {{done}} for the bot as all proposals in Phase I now appear to be closed. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 05:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 257 days ago on 9 March 2024) Trying this one again. Latest comment: 3 days ago, 98 comments, 21 people in discussion. Admins are involved, vigorous WP:NFCC discussion. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting this; I was about to do so myself. The consensus seems pretty clear, but given this is a copyright issue I think a formal close is beneficial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 265 days ago on 1 March 2024) – HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Toadette. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 25 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 228 days ago on 7 April 2024) - Requested move needs closure. Rally Wonk (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Wikiexplorationandhelping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 313 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Has now been open for three months. 2601:249:9301:D570:9012:4870:54CD:5F95 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 241 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 279 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPathtalk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 259 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- I came here to add this discussion here. There have been no new comments for over a fortnight. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf Done, though someone else needs to create and protect {{db-x3}} Mach61 14:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll see about getting to this shortly, assuming no one else does it first. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)- Template created, I might have missed some cat jiggery-pokery though. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf Done, though someone else needs to create and protect {{db-x3}} Mach61 14:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Question for other folks at CR: does my single comment in this discussion suggesting an edit to the RfC statement for clarity preclude me from closing this discussion as involved? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Mach61. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 258 days ago on 8 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 260 days ago on 6 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 242 days ago on 24 March 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Vpab15. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 202 days ago on 3 May 2024) Requesting a closure for the following discussion. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ganbare_Goemon_Kirakira_Dōchū:_Boku_ga_Dancer_ni_Natta_Wake_(2nd_nomination) Oz346 (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User: Geschichte. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 230 days ago on 5 April 2024) RfC needs help to close. -- GreenC 19:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 266 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 252 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} as a NAC. Soni (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 232 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Soni (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 226 days ago on 9 April 2024) – I would close this if I hadn't opened it. It has been a month and there is one other participant (supporting the move). I can do any cleanup needed. SilverLocust 💬 22:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. I believe even an involved person should have been able to close this discussion. I am not an admin, so someone else can confirm this Soni (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni: Thanks. Contrast WP:MERGECLOSE ("
Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed.
") with WP:RMCLOSE (saying not to do so but rather to request closure here). I considered WP:IARing that after a month, but I had already said after 7 days to wait for an uninvolved closer. SilverLocust 💬 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)- Yeah that's essentially the same read I had. Technically RMCLOSE says so, but I don't see a reason to not invoke IAR here. I actually still do not know why all RMs need to go through an uninvolved closer, and I've tried to dig through talk histories for the why. Might be worth asking in WT:RM than here though Soni (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's mostly because uncontroversial RMs are most often closed pretty quickly by editors who check WP:RME, whereas WP:MERGE closures are much more backlogged (Category:Articles to be merged) and more complicated to implement. SilverLocust 💬 16:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that's essentially the same read I had. Technically RMCLOSE says so, but I don't see a reason to not invoke IAR here. I actually still do not know why all RMs need to go through an uninvolved closer, and I've tried to dig through talk histories for the why. Might be worth asking in WT:RM than here though Soni (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni: Thanks. Contrast WP:MERGECLOSE ("
(Initiated 335 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to Ratnahastin. BilledMammal (talk) 04:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 316 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to TarnishedPath. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 04:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 245 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Soni (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni Thanks for closing, but my revert of the original close wasn't out of process and it was discussed in a couple of different places including the editor's TALK. WP:CR says non-admin can close as long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. The editor never responded or justified their close. Given the contentious nature of the discussion the RFC required a better close. Nemov (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I did read that talk page just afterwards. On second thought, I agree with you. I had mistakenly thought you were involved with the discussion, which coloured my opinion on this. I would have still preferred striking and clearly showing the removed close (given at least one editor disagreed with the revert), but I guess going through Close Challenge just for the sake of it would be pointless bureaucracy.
- I still hold to my overall close; that RFC was getting punted to the second discussion no matter which way it closes. Soni (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I agree with the close. Nemov (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni Thanks for closing, but my revert of the original close wasn't out of process and it was discussed in a couple of different places including the editor's TALK. WP:CR says non-admin can close as long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. The editor never responded or justified their close. Given the contentious nature of the discussion the RFC required a better close. Nemov (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 315 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 311 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}}. I added a script to help me close RMs, but it failed to mark this as a technical move request(?). Is there a manual way to ask for help on "I closed this RM but the UI did not allow me to"? Right now I used CSD G6 to allow for the move, but I suspect there's a more suitable way. Soni (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni: Are you aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Uncontroversial technical requests? I usually use that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I now am. I vaguely saw that page earlier, but I think I decided to keep looking because it wasn't clear to me based on other sections if "I closed an RM" counted as a "uncontroversial" technical request. I'll use that page or the user script from now, thank you. Soni (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- It does. In fact, I'm certain I read somewhere that technical requests by RM closers should be honored even when the page mover disagrees with the close/expects that it will be challenged, although now I can't find where. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Found it: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, paragraph #4. Although my memory of what that section said did not serve me well. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks! Soni (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Found it: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure, paragraph #4. Although my memory of what that section said did not serve me well. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- It does. In fact, I'm certain I read somewhere that technical requests by RM closers should be honored even when the page mover disagrees with the close/expects that it will be challenged, although now I can't find where. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 03:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I now am. I vaguely saw that page earlier, but I think I decided to keep looking because it wasn't clear to me based on other sections if "I closed an RM" counted as a "uncontroversial" technical request. I'll use that page or the user script from now, thank you. Soni (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 269 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BilledMammal. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 262 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 256 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 222 days ago on 14 April 2024) No new comments for over three weeks Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 209 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 204 days ago on 1 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 224 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 321 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Soni (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 320 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Soni (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 219 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 333 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} although I wouldn't mind a 2nd set of eyes on the close. I'm not as sure on this as I'd like (which I suppose is no consensus). Either way, a second look never hurt anyone. Soni (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 249 days ago on 17 March 2024)
No new posts for over a month. Legobot auto-removed the RFC tag, but I'd like a definite outcome. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Strong objection - there is no such thing as a definite outcome in this particular issue, it is unresolved and likely to remain that way. JarrahTree 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} Soni (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 190 days ago on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Redrose64. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 250 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 220 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPathtalk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Courtesy ping to TarnishedPath. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts, must appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 02:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 232 days ago on 4 April 2024) Proposer of merge, discussion has been open for a month and seems to be shifted towards keep, but I'd appreciate an outside opinion as there have been some votes of opposition on top of my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 245 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 205 days ago on 30 April 2024) There haven't been new comments for over a week. Vanezi (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 237 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Courtesy ping @TarnishedPath. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 210 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Gtoffoletto: {{Done}} Qono (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 289 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to Natg 19. BilledMammal (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 283 days ago on 12 February 2024)
Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Amigao: {{Done}} Qono (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 218 days ago on 17 April 2024) This is ready for a closse. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemov: {{Done}} Qono (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 214 days ago on 21 April 2024) No new comments since 12 May. Graham (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 236 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 229 days ago on 6 April 2024) RfC template was removed by the robot 6th of May. Last comment was the 2nd of May. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 13:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 244 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 243 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 211 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 302 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 207 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Goldenarrow9 Thanks for your clear summaries. So does ‘weak consensus’ at the top mean I can go ahead and merge everything or does it mean I should do nothing? Or something in between or can I decide for myself? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Chidgk1: Please refer to my detailed closing remarks on the merits of each proposal. I would advice against merging everything as there was clearly no consensus on some of the proposed merges. I would say where there is a local consensus, you can move forward with the merge keeping in mind the considerations and pitfalls that have been highlighted in the discussion (and my remarks). On some of the proposals, there was no proper consensus (and I have mentioned as such) - avoid making any changes on those.
In short, don't just act on the basis of the 1-word status at the top. Instead, read my entire closing remarks along with the context of the discussion to see which merges you can move forward with. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Chidgk1: Please refer to my detailed closing remarks on the merits of each proposal. I would advice against merging everything as there was clearly no consensus on some of the proposed merges. I would say where there is a local consensus, you can move forward with the merge keeping in mind the considerations and pitfalls that have been highlighted in the discussion (and my remarks). On some of the proposals, there was no proper consensus (and I have mentioned as such) - avoid making any changes on those.
- @Goldenarrow9 Thanks for your clear summaries. So does ‘weak consensus’ at the top mean I can go ahead and merge everything or does it mean I should do nothing? Or something in between or can I decide for myself? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 204 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Daniel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 194 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} - I have been watching the disputes on the page for the past few days. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 336 days ago on 21 December 2023) Long past 'best before' date. - wolf 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Thewolfchild: {{Done}} Qono (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 219 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 282 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor QuicoleJR. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 192 days ago on 13 May 2024)
Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 204 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 196 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Maddy from Celeste. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 202 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Chidgk1: I've {{done}} that one for you. Mdann52 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 226 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 209 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 203 days ago on 2 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 198 days ago on 7 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 190 days ago on 15 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 217 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Ca. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 236 days ago on 30 March 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 191 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} I've NAC'd it. Mdann52 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 210 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 600 days ago on 1 April 2023) The merge proposal was uncontested and carried out six months after the discussion opened. That merge was then reverted; a more formal consensus can be determined by now. — MarkH21talk 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – as you say, this "merge proposal was uncontested and carried out", so there is no need to formally close this merge discussion. What appears to be needed is more discussion on the talk page about the edits made after the obvious consensus of the merge discussion. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- To editor MarkH21: apologies for the late ping. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.
- The merge proposal was made on 1 April 2023.
- The merge was performed here and here on 22 November 2023.
- The merge was reverted here and here on 22 November 2023. Immediately after the merge was reverted, the consensus on the talk page was not clear.
- The discussion Talk:British Ceylon#Merge proposal has been open since 22 November 2023. There have been no meaningful edits to British Ceylon period since the merge was reverted on 22 November 2023.
- So it is appropriate for an editor to assess the consensus of the discussion now, since the merge was contested and effectively never took place. — MarkH21talk 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: No, the close is necessary because the merge was contested and reverted.
- With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Ah you've convinced me. I was being a bit too cautious and it was slightly counterproductive – sorry to take your time! I'll perform the merger, thanks. — MarkH21talk 00:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- With respect, I disagree. While the consensus was clear enough before, your support made it even clearer that consensus is to merge. Please take another look at the yellow, #1 cue ball near the top of this page. Either a new discussion is needed or just boldly go ahead with the merger again. If you feel the need to close this discussion, then close it yourself. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- No problemo and Happy to Help! and Thank You for your work on Wikipedia! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 215 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 211 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 221 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Thryduulf. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 218 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia
(Initiated 196 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 175 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can see, discussion is still ongoing for both discussions on that page, and clearly not appropriate for a speedy close at this time. There isn't a clear consensus for either discussion, so no harm letting the RM run for a bit and revisiting both discussions in light of that. Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Brian Kendig. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 197 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} ~Awilley (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 175 days ago on 30 May 2024) I estimate this discussion has received around 250 votes, over 3/4 of them within the first 24 hours, including a substantial number of votes from IP editors. Voting frequency has dropped significantly (0-5 votes per day for the past few days) and I think this merits a timely close. Because of the contentious and high profile nature of this, including news coverage [1] [2] I would recommend an experienced closer or a panel. ~Awilley (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have edited Trump's article (and related articles) before but do not think I will be involved for this. I have followed a fair bit of the discussion. I'm definitely not experienced enough for a solo-close, so will volunteer to help or join a panel, in case either is needed. Soni (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 233 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tavix. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 228 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 226 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tavix. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 211 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tavix. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 208 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 247 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 227 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 217 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tavix. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 232 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoi: {{Done}}. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Chess Thank you for closing this discussion! And thank you for the suggestions you provided in your close regarding potential next steps. They are very helpful. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Aoi: {{Done}}. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 184 days ago on 22 May 2024) I have ended this RFC a week early per WP:RFCEND. Because of a history of edit warring over this, I would like an uninvolved editor to provide a clear statement about what editors prefer (even if it's not one of the 'official' two options). Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 277 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 251 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
| new closer needed |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 228 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 227 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 211 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 199 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024) This seems to just now be a forum thread about being banned elsewhere or something (in fact I am unsure it has ever been anything but a forum thread). Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am the main author of that thread, and I agree with this request. Initially, it was a reply to a Facebook post by Anthroposophists seeking to remove me from Wikipedia. At /r/WikipediaVandalism, the attacks against me were even more vicious. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Not done}} I had a look at the talk page and could not see what needs closing. I'd suggest deleting/collapsing anything about the dispute, particularly which isn't related to the content of the article, and leave only discussion relevant to improving content of the article. Happy to take input from others, Tom B (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 219 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Close}} I closed the discussion as currently no consensus to reinstate the press source,Tom B (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 203 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
{{Close}} Closed as no consensus, Tom B (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 176 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{Close}} I closed it last night as no consensus to move, Tom B (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 176 days ago on 29 May 2024) Some1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} there was consensus to merge and i undertook the merge, Tom B (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 171 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 158 days ago on 16 June 2024) This is a combined merge and move request for two articles. At the very least, consensus seems to have been reached on one of those fronts, (that being to merge L'Europe Ensemble and Together (coalition)), while the rename discussion seems to be at a standstill. There hasn't been any major discussion or back-and-forth in over a day, and I think it would be worthwhile to at least act on the consensus to merge the two articles while leaving the rename discussion open. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GlowstoneUnknown: {{not done}} One day is far too short a time to establish consensus, unless a massive pile-on of WP:SNOW occurs - which isn't the case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- How long would be reasonable for consensus? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @GlowstoneUnknown: See WP:CON, but for a RM, I would say a minimum of one week. Bear in mind that many editors don't log in every day; some only have time on one day a week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- How long would be reasonable for consensus? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 181 days ago on 24 May 2024) Discussion died down, only recent addition came after an editor reverted the changes made on the ground that the RfC had not yet been closed. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 155 days ago on 19 June 2024) An editor started an RfC confirmed to be improper by a third opinion. Please close the RfC as an improper RfC. Closetside (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Closetside: I've done this unilaterally since I was the one who initiated it inappropriately. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
{{Close}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpbradbury (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 229 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there
19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC) - {{already done}} by The Wordsmith, theleekycauldron, and Tamzin. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 209 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 202 days ago on 3 May 2024) Expired RFC where everyone seemed to be in agreement.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 202 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 181 days ago on 24 May 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 232 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 229 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 228 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 223 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 222 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by... Pppery — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 220 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 209 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 209 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 207 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 205 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jay. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 227 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 203 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 178 days ago on 27 May 2024) This discussion could use a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC) {{Close}} Tom B (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 176 days ago on 29 May 2024) Last comment was 9 days ago and this is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) {{Close}} Tom B (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 172 days ago on 2 June 2024) No new !votes in over a week. The RfC creator is claiming a no consensus outcome and I'm not sure I agree, but I am involved. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 196 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[3] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. There is no consensus for anything there. One uninvolved editor's opinion does not a consensus make. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 159 days ago on 15 June 2024) Most participants believe that there is consensus around the issue(s) at hand. Likely to be unarchived if it is archived by a bot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 152 days ago on 22 June 2024) Obvious consensus has formed for a community imposed topic ban from "Indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed". Admin close required. TarnishedPathtalk 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ScottishFinnishRadish. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 250 days ago on 16 March 2024) Given that the discussion has now archived, it seems ripe for formal closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC) {{Close}} Tom B (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 218 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [4] [5]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 183 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 184 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that at least two of the accounts active on the Talk:Yasuke page in an oppositional role, myself and @Green Caffeine, are not at all SPAs, and we have brought up serious issues with various sources claimed as "reliable". These issues remain unaddressed, and mostly ignored by various editors (unfortunately, including Loki here), who continue to call references "reliable" even after it has been shown that the works have been academically reviewed and described as "historical fiction", and even contain outright fabrication. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Chrhns (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 158 days ago on 16 June 2024) A move/rename discussion has taken place here alongside a merge discussion, the merge discussion has reached consensus, and I believe there's a case to be made that there is consensus on the name change, but a third party is required to determine if the discussion should be closed or not. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 22 July 2020) Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on 22 July 2020, with the last vote occurring on 12 August 2020. It was bot-archived without closure. - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – as said above, this has been archived, and there is obvious consensus for one of the four options, so there is no need for a formal closure. Editor Amigao, feel free to close this if you want to. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think this should be closed either, but not because I think there is an obvious consensus. Four-year-old RfCs shouldn't be closed, particularly for an RSN discussion, where relevant facts regarding a source might have changed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 259 days ago on 7 March 2024) RfC tag expired some time ago. TarnishedPathtalk 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 227 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. There's a new RFC on the page, so closed this as no consensus. Soni (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 207 days ago on 28 April 2024) Discussion on the actual RfC seems to have slowed. Consensus appeared clear to me, but I was reverted attempting to implement the edits so I'm requesting a formal closure. There is additional information on this topic (overall and about the page in question specifically) at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Alternatives_to_writer_and_director_parameters that I'd request a closer reads over. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Chrhns (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 198 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 172 days ago on 3 June 2024): Expired RfC; discussion has fizzled and it's mostly just the same arguments repeated now. Also has a sub-discussion of a proposed moratorium which I think would be an easy SNOW close. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Still looks closed to me. In any case, we'd need the close appeal to close before a new closure is requested, so I'm marking as {{already done}}. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And now reclosed pending review at the Administrators' noticeboard. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now reopened; new closer (or closers) needed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 300 days ago on 26 January 2024) Discussion ran its course 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I fail to see how consensus is clear, given how there is a split of support/oppose that will require weighing if their is a consensus to merge or not merge. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 296 days ago on 30 January 2024) Discussion has ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion has run its course.166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discussion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 202 days ago on 3 May 2024) Contentious issue but I feel like basically all that's going to be said of substance has been said, and it's been plenty of time. I'm also still a bit new to being active again to feel comfortable closing myself, so I just turned my evaluation of what's been said into a !vote. Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- update: I've drafted a closure at WP:DfD. I'm travelling so using a phone and cannot do the closure. It'd be good to know if more detail needed or good to go? Tom B (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Let me know if commenting on this is inappropriate as an involved editor, but...) Okay yeah, after reading your proposed closure, I'm glad I put in this request. Even before becoming formally "involved" I think I would've struggled to remain neutral here 😅 Kinsio (talk ★ contribs) 12:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Joe Roe. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 170 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Anachronist. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 163 days ago on 11 June 2024) A requested move that's gone well beyond the seven days and was relisted on 19 June. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 162 days ago on 12 June 2024) Requested move is failing to attract new participants to the discussion despite the proposer's relistings.Rally Wonk (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 153 days ago on 21 June 2024) Consensus has been reached in the conversation under heading survey 2. Just asking for this closure so we can proceed with the agreed upon move. Editors have specifically asked for neutral party to close the discussion, so thats what Im doing here.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BilledMammal. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 225 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 195 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Were notifications made to the talk pages of the affected articles and MOS:LAYOUT? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed (for now). I missed this comment above by voorts while closing, WeatherWriter, could you clarify if the talk pages were notified? I'm not sure what is usually done if the RFC is not advertised broadly elsewhere. Soni (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Courtesy pings: Voorts and Soni). The two most recent pages affected (Tornadoes of 2024 and Tornadoes of 2023) were talk page notified. The discussion started over 2 months ago, so if I recall correctly, 2023/2024 were the only articles actually changed at that point in time. An IP-user changed several articles (2011-2022) after the discussion was started. I may have that timeline wrong, but either way, the 2023 article and 2024 article have way more views than any other article, with 2024 actually having over 100k views in the last 30 days. Notifying those, even if 2010-2022 had already been changed would have still caught the same editors as 2023/2024 notifications along with WP:Weather talk page, which was also notified. Even a check on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024 showed it was viewed over 7,000 times (not the article, the talk page). I think it was broadly notified. Plus, it was an RFC, which notified non-tornado editors as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, the two talk page notifications is good for me. Soni (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Courtesy pings: Voorts and Soni). The two most recent pages affected (Tornadoes of 2024 and Tornadoes of 2023) were talk page notified. The discussion started over 2 months ago, so if I recall correctly, 2023/2024 were the only articles actually changed at that point in time. An IP-user changed several articles (2011-2022) after the discussion was started. I may have that timeline wrong, but either way, the 2023 article and 2024 article have way more views than any other article, with 2024 actually having over 100k views in the last 30 days. Notifying those, even if 2010-2022 had already been changed would have still caught the same editors as 2023/2024 notifications along with WP:Weather talk page, which was also notified. Even a check on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024 showed it was viewed over 7,000 times (not the article, the talk page). I think it was broadly notified. Plus, it was an RFC, which notified non-tornado editors as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, MOSLAYOUT was not notified. I finally found the original discussion in the WikiProject Weather archives (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 3#Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric). There wasn't a real consensus at the time to change any article except the Tornadoes of 2024 article. 2023's article was changed for a "here is what a completed article" looks like vs the 2024 article, which is obviously still in construction due to 2024 being the current year. Months later (it looks like 8 days before this discussion started) the IP user notified the WP:Weather talk page about planning to change previous year layouts (pre-2023 ones) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 4#Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier). So my timeline was a little wrong, but even looking at the IP-users notification, editors started not liking the format which was used on 2023/2024's article. To me, pre-2022 didn't even have a consensus to be changed, which is why all the 1946-2010 articles weren't changed and this discussion was started. Hopefully that clears up the timeline. That let me dust off the old memory as well (lol). So the two articles with actual consensus to change were notified, as well as the place where they new layout format was discussed/gained consensus in the first place. MOSLAYOUT was not notified for that discussion nor this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. That seems like sufficient notification. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, MOSLAYOUT was not notified. I finally found the original discussion in the WikiProject Weather archives (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 3#Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric). There wasn't a real consensus at the time to change any article except the Tornadoes of 2024 article. 2023's article was changed for a "here is what a completed article" looks like vs the 2024 article, which is obviously still in construction due to 2024 being the current year. Months later (it looks like 8 days before this discussion started) the IP user notified the WP:Weather talk page about planning to change previous year layouts (pre-2023 ones) (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 4#Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier). So my timeline was a little wrong, but even looking at the IP-users notification, editors started not liking the format which was used on 2023/2024's article. To me, pre-2022 didn't even have a consensus to be changed, which is why all the 1946-2010 articles weren't changed and this discussion was started. Hopefully that clears up the timeline. That let me dust off the old memory as well (lol). So the two articles with actual consensus to change were notified, as well as the place where they new layout format was discussed/gained consensus in the first place. MOSLAYOUT was not notified for that discussion nor this one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 143 days ago on 1 July 2024) A discussion about taking a source off the spam blacklist. Probably needs a formal close for it to be actionable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)- I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Soni (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 141 days ago on 4 July 2024). Relatively routine proposal, without controversy. Could use an uninvolved closer, to be safe. – Aza24 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} - Yellow ball at top of this page, #1 - Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself. Soni (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni, I am perfectly aware of the page instructions. As a general rule, I do not close discussions I've initiated. Alas, I've now closed the discussion. Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you. I just have seen Closure Requests run this way before so preferred commenting. Soni (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Soni, I am perfectly aware of the page instructions. As a general rule, I do not close discussions I've initiated. Alas, I've now closed the discussion. Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 131 days ago on 13 July 2024). Per WP:SNOWPRO, might want to take a look at this one. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JPxG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Consensus appears to been established. LJF2019 talk 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This is already listed in the "other types of closing requests" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 182 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 177 days ago on 28 May 2024)
Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} I did not see anything that specifically needed admin attention for this RFC, so closed it. Soni (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 174 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 169 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
doingTW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)- No longer able to close. Not done. TW 03:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} BusterD (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 165 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
doingChess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)- Not done. No longer able to close, another closer should look into this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} BusterD (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 160 days ago on 14 June 2024) Could someone please close this RFC? Thank you very much. Grandmaster 05:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 183 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Mdann52. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 10:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 133 days ago on 11 July 2024) Requesting a uninvolved editor for proper closure as this discussion was created due to a dispute, discussion from registered users has stale, and currently is causing WP:WHATABOUT spamming by multiple IPs likely to be fans. In addition, based on closure's results, please also help to update the lead accordingly. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} per ball #1 above: Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 172 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Soni (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 175 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, much belatedly. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 131 days ago on 14 July 2024) Already has absurdly unwieldy number of comments. Needs an experienced closer who is familiar with copyright policy for files. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed the discussion. Note that I have edited Trump and adjacent articles before but should not be considered involved for this. Soni (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 174 days ago on 31 May 2024) No new comments in a week, discussion open for several months.CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 150 days ago on 25 June 2024) appears this can be closed. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 172 days ago on 2 June 2024) Appears to be going nowhere. Personally, I think no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowal2701 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 182 days ago on 23 May 2024) Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} though this was a very sparse discussion. I do not see how relisting could have given more opinions, so closing the only natural way I could see. Soni (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 149 days ago on 25 June 2024) RFC tag has expired. Consensus seems clear, however a previous close and update to WP:RSP was reverted. TarnishedPathtalk 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Although I've commented in the RFC I was thinking of closing it even before you posted here. No editor is arguing that the sources should be considered anything but reliable, so I don't think this controversial. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 140 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- 6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor BRMSF. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 153 days ago on 21 June 2024) RFC template has expired and conversation has died down. TarnishedPathtalk 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tpbradbury. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 179 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 172 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- The move was closed with no rationale, so someone immediately set-up a move review: WP:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. I don't know if that means it needs to be closed here or not, thank you, Tom B (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Reading Beans. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 158 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm rather minded to mark this {{Not done}}. I don't think that discussion came to any useable conclusion. To the extent that there was a consensus, it was about historical events; the Zong Massacre was discussed, and presumably nobody takes issue with Amritsar massacre or Peterloo massacre or St Brice's Day massacre as article titles. At issue is titles like "massacre" in articles about current events, and there's the blindingly obvious guidance from the community to be careful with the wording, but apart from that I don't see the kind of clear conclusion that would justify closing an archived discussion?—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @S Marshall, then a close of no consensus is perfectly acceptable. Since you're uninvolved, why don't you go ahead and close that discussion? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 152 days ago on 22 June 2024) Consensus reached. Relisted three times and no further discussion arising, but needs uninvolved closer. (If it helps, end of discussion here: Talk:Anti-Black_sentiment#c-AjaxSmack-20240722195700-Lewisguile-20240722193300) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisguile (talk • contribs) 06:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 150 days ago on 24 June 2024) Not particularly long or complicated, but participants are arguing over whether there's consensus. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 19 July 2024) Please review or relist this discussion--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. I did not see a relisting helping here, given the structure of the current discussion and how it was proceeding. So closed it the most reasonable outcome I could see (No consensus). Soni (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 157 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 238 days ago on 28 March 2024) Can somebody close this, frankly, I thought it had been closed by now. Its been at least a week with no new comments. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 199 days ago on 6 May 2024) We have reached an impasse and agree that a formal closure would be helpful in determining next steps. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 141 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by S Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpbradbury (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 111 days ago on 2 August 2024) Consensus reached for either Utah Transit Authority bus rapid transit or UTA bus rapid transit, ready for closure. Nebula3lem123 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 148 days ago on 26 June 2024) RFC has elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 164 days ago on 10 June 2024) RfC expired recently without a clear consensus. --Belbury (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 138 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 136 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't need a formal closure, but {{Done}} anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 133 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 477 days ago on 2 August 2023) – the request to split Kaunas#Coat of arms into a separate article was started more than one year ago and so far it received no support from other users, while two users opposed it. Consequently, I think it is pointless to leave this discussion open and it should be finally closed. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}}. I would say this was unambiguous enough that an involved close could also have been done. Soni (talk) 07:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Closure review of The Telegraph RfC
(Initiated 135 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Previously...
|
|---|
 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
|
{{close}} by editor ProcrastinatingReader. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 134 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 118 days ago on 26 July 2024) Move review for Srebrenica massacre. Last comment was two weeks ago. This can be closed. TarnishedPathtalk 00:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 859 days ago on 16 July 2022) Requesting formal closure due to current discussions over the reliability of the subject. CNC (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor: - it doesn't look like this was ever a formal RfC, and I'm not really a fan of taking a 2 year old discussion to show the current consensus, given the number of procedural arguements within, and given that discussion is archived as well, I'm extra tempted not to change it (especially as I would be leaning towards a no consensus close on that discussion based on the points raised). Is a fresh RfC a better option here, given the time elapsed and more research into their reliability since then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdann52 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CommunityNotesContributor: {{Not done}} Closures are intended to assess current consensus, not consensus from two years ago in an archived thread. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for both your replies, it's interesting to hear the assessment of no consensus from that discussion given previous/current interpretation of that discussion. It's looks like another RfC is needed after all then. CNC (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's not an assesment of no consensus, that seems more like an assesment of no assesment. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for both your replies, it's interesting to hear the assessment of no consensus from that discussion given previous/current interpretation of that discussion. It's looks like another RfC is needed after all then. CNC (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 142 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 139 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)
can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Trimpops2 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This closure is terrible. There's no explanation on how the consensus was determined. 93.142.80.133 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 135 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 124 days ago on 21 July 2024)Requesting a formal closure, initiated a while back, last comment 11 days ago. Sohom (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 119 days ago on 25 July 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 96 days ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship.paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Part 2 of the RFC has been closed. Thanks to ProcrastinatingReader. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by ProcrastinatingReader and Hobit. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 109 days ago on 4 August 2024) Discussion started 4 August 2024. Last comment 8 August 2024. Except one editor who started edit in July 2024, others support move. Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 102 days ago on 11 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Can an admin please close the two TBAN proposals which are present in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic ban from GENSEX (Behaviour of JacktheBrown). TarnishedPathtalk 12:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Valereee. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 191 days ago on 14 May 2024) Requesting formal closure on this archived discussion from three months ago due to a discussion on a sub-page of the main article. There is a claim that since it was never closed by an uninvolved party that it lacks consensus. As I have since been involved in a related discussion, I would not count as uninvolved under the criteria. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now moot due to current events. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Marking as not done for archiving purposes. Moot discussion now. Soni (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 181 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion on this matter has essentially been ongoing since May 17, 2024, when Musk announced that the URL was officially changed from twitter.com to x.com. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's worse than that. Since Twitter was rebranded to X on July 23, 2023:
- Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#Requested move 24 July 2023
- Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive 1#Requested move 24 July 2023
- Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#(closed) Requested move 31 July 2023
- Talk:Twitter/Archive 7#Requested move 30 August 2023
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 19#X (social network) – a redirect with a history of edit-warring
- Talk:List of most-followed Twitter accounts#Requested move 14 August 2024 – just closed within the past day.
- Clearly the discussions will continue virtually nonstop until Wikipedia finally kills the bird. A lot of moving parts here, though; that complicates the matter.
- Doing... I've put in too many hours on this to stop now, but it will be many more hours before I have a close, if not longer. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Whew, wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Whew, wbm1058 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 122 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Amakuru. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 10 August 2024) Clear consensus reached, but since merge was reverted, requesting a formal closure & merge. CheeseCurdFan (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per WP:MERGECLOSE. The reversions of the redirects were because of WP:BMB, not on the merits of the issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 145 days ago on 29 June 2024) Conversation seems to have concluded. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 144 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 126 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 91 days ago on 22 August 2024) There are currently two separate RfCs about Trump’s infobox photo. Should there be a procedural close, or should discussion be allowed to continue? Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 days ago on 28 July 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Dr vulpes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 358 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 254 days ago on 12 March 2024) Merger proposal started months ago. Closure may be overdue. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 141 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can someone close this one? For some reason it was extended, but it hasn't really changed anything. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yup. {{done}}—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 97 days ago on 17 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @HouseBlaster I have closed the discussion and renamed the category; I'll leave the recategorization to the bot. I hope I haven't screwed this up. Cremastra (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cremastra: thank you! Normally things need to be fed to the bot via WP:CFDW (and non-admins make requests to do so at its talk page). In this case, because this category is (mostly) populated by a template, we have done everything we need to do (besides waiting for the old category name to become de-populated by the jobqueue). Thank you for your help :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, phew. I was worried I had accidentally created a 4,000-page bot queue or some other catastrophhe. :) Cremastra (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cremastra: thank you! Normally things need to be fed to the bot via WP:CFDW (and non-admins make requests to do so at its talk page). In this case, because this category is (mostly) populated by a template, we have done everything we need to do (besides waiting for the old category name to become de-populated by the jobqueue). Thank you for your help :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Cremastra. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 10 August 2024) – 6 votes for the merge, and I, as an involved editor, boldly closed myself per WP:SNOW. However, the article has been targeted by socks of WP:LTA/Andrew5, who completed the merge twice and indeed asked for a closer form here. After I closed it and completed the merge myself, User:Sir_MemeGod challenged my closure, stating SNOW had not been agreed upon. I'm asking for an uninvolved closer more versed in SNOW and closing discussions, as well as dealing with socks and WP:BMB, so that we can be done with this nightmarish discussion. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} (again) for the reasons outlined at article talk and my previous declining of this. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 10 August 2024) Several users have discussed the issue sufficiently, but others agree that there are too many options to reach a consensus.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Goodtiming8871: Please properly format this request and list it in the proper section. See the rest of the requests above as well as the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @voorts, Thank for your kind advice, I updated the format after reading other requests and instructions. Please advise me if it still needs to be fixed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Goodtiming8871: Just needs to be moved to the RfC section as far as I see. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- And done. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Super Goku V,Thank you for your kind advice and contribution. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @voorts, Thank for your kind advice, I updated the format after reading other requests and instructions. Please advise me if it still needs to be fixed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}. C F A 💬 14:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 10 August 2024) It's clear there's no consensus, both to not move the page to the initially desired page title or to certain alternatively proposed page titles, but the discussion has run stale and the page needs moving now that it is no longer August. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Altenmann. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 152 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 198 days ago on 7 May 2024) 34 comments, 17 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down. Not the most monumental of issues, but closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 98 days ago on 16 August 2024) I planned to move this to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company). However, that's been reverted as "an undiscussed move" and discussion has died down and I have withdrawn the plan to move it to that name. I am also requesting for it to be moved back to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company) because it was moved to Southeastern_(train_operating_company,_2006–2021) in Feb 2024 for no apparent reason and given the number of moves, its safe to say it needs to be moved back to the stable title per WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SVTRT. Same applies to Thameslink_(train_operating_company,_1997–2006) JuniperChill (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by FOARP. SilverLocust 💬 05:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 108 days ago on 5 August 2024) - Discussion is a month old and appears to have run its course. A consensus may have emerged but not a snow close so needs a kind uninvoled editor please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 16:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 118 days ago on 26 July 2024) – Talk:Bolognese School#Requested move 26 July 2024 is 6 weeks old, and discussion has died down. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Amakuru. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 146 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 121 days ago on 23 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 93 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 127 days ago on 18 July 2024) – I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. There seems to be a lot of cursory support and little discussion, which doesn't make for a good formal closure. I would encourage you to just be bold and do it. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 142 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. I never like having to do this, but when an ANI thread's been archived for this long, it's not fair to the subjects to bring it back from the dead and close it. Starting a new discussion is an option if there are ongoing problems. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 124 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 112 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor bibliomaniac15. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 99 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- All discussions have been either {{close}} or relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 93 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 397 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 243 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 203 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 200 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 200 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
- Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- If by "the bot", you mean ClueBot III, which carries out the archiving, you will only "mess up the bot" if you use a level 2 heading, or edit below a line that says "above this line". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Since nobody else has volunteered, I may as well finish what I started. Doing... administrator recall. This one might take some time. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Going AFK for a bit. Will finish later this evening. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 05:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 127 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 124 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Voorts thanks for the close. TarnishedPathtalk 01:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 566 days ago on 5 May 2023) The last comment was posted 8 months ago, and the nominator never specified which sections to split off. - Waterard, not water. talk - contribs 01:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} per WP:SPLITCLOSE. There is unanimous consent to split. I would ping the other editors who were involved in the discussion and see what they had in mind before performing the split. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 days ago on 11 September 2024) Needs a WP:SNOW close. I'm involved or I'd do it myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rename and re-theme ITN: request for an early close
(Initiated 70 days ago on 12 September 2024) There is almost unanimous consensus to close this RfC early, but I think this needs an uninvolved closer. There's currently an ongoing RFCBEFORE discussion in anticipation of a workshopped RfC on the future of ITN, so a quick review of this close request would be greatly appreciated. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- 5 to 9 (just counting heads) is not "unanimous". Neither is a list of several opposers supporting close (with one supporter "ambivalent", and one of the RFC opposers opposing the early close). And a rename proposal doesn't interfere with whatever other discussions you may be having. If some future discussion does even more - great - consensus can change, after all. RFCs run for 30 days. And this one should too. - jc37 21:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I was referring to the discussion about an early close being nearly unanimous, not the RfC itself. A closer here will weigh the arguments and make an appropriate decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by TechnoSquirrel69. SilverLocust 💬 04:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 122 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 28#Category:Education scandals and controversies
(Initiated 85 days ago on 28 August 2024) I think this is an easy one, both to close and to implement – {{db-xfd}} is your friend for non-admins :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 80 days ago on 2 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 91 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 85 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Preemptively commenting that I have been sick for the past couple of days: not seriously, but enough that I feel like I haven't had the mental energy to give this the attention it deserves. It has not slipped my mind. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... The WordsmithTalk to me 04:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 154 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 104 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} Nemov. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 days ago on 3 August 2024) This RFC is more than 40 days old with the last vote coming 13 days ago. Could an uninvolved editor close it, please? castorbailey (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 September 2024) Restored from archive. Admin closure requested. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by StarMississippi. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
(Initiated 137 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nemov It has been another month and the RfC still hasn't been closed (or restarted with fewer options), would you consider reviewing it again? Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic EnbyI've reopened the discussion with the narrowed choices. If you don't mind please ping the involved editors who participated in the RFC. Nemov (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}, I've also pinged people in the discussions below, as at least one of them didn't know if the RfC was still open. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Nemov. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic EnbyI've reopened the discussion with the narrowed choices. If you don't mind please ping the involved editors who participated in the RFC. Nemov (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 108 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 107 days ago on 6 August 2024) Hello. Could an uninvolved editor please summarise and close this discussion. Thanks Melbguy05 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} though I'm not convinced it needed a close. Sincerely, Dilettante 20:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- This should be a straightforward close, but would prefer an uninvolved editor to close it. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 87 days ago on 26 August 2024) Greetings closing admins, I would like to request a closure of RfC discussion of Algeria Algeria RfC discussion as the discussion has stabilized and it is due for closure. --Potymkin (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Potymkin: It's not due for closure, as it's been open for 19 days not 30. The last comment was four days ago, at 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC), so I also don't think that it's stabilised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Somebody else may request closure at the appropriate time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 133 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 131 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 13 September 2024) Requesting closure on move request as I am an involved editor. Move discussion was light on participation but no objections and no minimum participation required per WP:RMNOMIN. RachelTensions (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 13 September 2024) Requesting closure on move request as I am an involved editor. Move discussion was light on participation but no objections and no minimum participation required per WP:RMNOMIN. RachelTensions (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- @RachelTensions the requested move discussions will be attended to by editors watching WP:RMC’s Elapsed section. There is no need to file for closure here unless the discussion had been opened for weeks. – robertsky (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just following the instructions as laid out at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions :)
- "If you wish to solicit a closure after at least a week of discussion has taken place, you can make a request for an impartial administrator to assess consensus." RachelTensions (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can make, but you don’t need/have to make. From experience, it is not needed to be filed here. If the discussion is straightforward and not contentious, it will be closed pretty fast after the 7 days have lapsed without any solicitation for closers. (For most discussions, the timer starts when you open the discussion, not at 00:00 of the day. So this requests you are making… are just a tad ahead of schedule). – robertsky (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
You can make, but you don’t need/have to make. From experience, it is not needed to be filed here. If the discussion is straightforward and not contentious, it will be closed pretty fast after the 7 days have lapsed without any solicitation for closers.
Perhaps that should be added to the guidelines. RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)- Good idea. Will stew on it. – robertsky (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can make, but you don’t need/have to make. From experience, it is not needed to be filed here. If the discussion is straightforward and not contentious, it will be closed pretty fast after the 7 days have lapsed without any solicitation for closers. (For most discussions, the timer starts when you open the discussion, not at 00:00 of the day. So this requests you are making… are just a tad ahead of schedule). – robertsky (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 83 days ago on 30 August 2024) Another easy one :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 September 2024) I think this is an easy one, both to close and to implement – {{db-xfd}} is your friend for non-admins :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 184 days ago on 22 May 2024) – RfC template was removed by a bot a few weeks ago, but this still needs a formal close. I am involved so I'd prefer to see someone else do it, particularly as I believe the discussion ended up endorsing my viewpoint. --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}} There wasn't much there to base a closure on. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 100 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 94 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 days ago on 11 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 13 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 12 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 12 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 10 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 129 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Was just about to submit this. Adding my comment for bumping. - Ïvana (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}}-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 107 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 89 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 23 September 2024) Article has been draftified by creator. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. I'll note that anyone could have closed this, under the circumstances. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was possibly being over-scrupulous just because I had !voted. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 65 days ago on 17 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 September 2024) Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Whoever closes this discussion might be interested in closing the related RM below too. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 210 days ago on 26 April 2024) RfC template only added on 27 April and may not be properly transcluded. Still open because it may not be showing anywhere. Grateful if a neutral and experienced closer could take a look at sorting this out. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy: What do you mean by "may not be properly transcluded"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I could not see that it was ever listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. But then, on the other hand, I was perhaps not looking right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- See Legobot's contribs from the appropriate period. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- I could not see that it was ever listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. But then, on the other hand, I was perhaps not looking right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 152 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Had I not !voted, I would probably close this with "why in all hell did you think opening an RfC with nine options, many of which are very similar, would be a good way to find consensus?!?". We probably need a guideline advising against such inane choices. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Doing- I'm not an admin, but I think I can get a handle on this one. A read over does suggest some trends... Fieari (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 113 days ago on 31 July 2024) Requesting closure on this discussion which has not had a new comment in a week when excluding its brief archival. The discussion is lengthy and split into multiple sections. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 87 days ago on 26 August 2024) Discussion slowed, ready for closing. 04:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria this is {{Done}}. Nemov (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 80 days ago on 2 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 357 days ago on 30 November 2023) Discussion died down for one month or more. Closure long overdue. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure that was super needed, but {{Done}}. The languishing, I think, is the wait for someone to do it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 120 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 351 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 137 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 100 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 13 August 2024) Ready for closing, RfC tag removed on 12 September and last comment on 17 September. — Goszei (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 92 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 86 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)