Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 32
 | This is an archive of past discussions on 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 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
(Initiated 1442 days ago on 15 January 2021) Requesting admin closure on the discussion to add OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score to Video Game Manual of Style on Reception sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1435 days ago on 22 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1399 days ago on 26 February 2021) – This discussion has been running for nearly a month now, and we are still not any closer to coming to a consensus. The discussion also appears to have died out a week ago, as there has been no further input since then. It looks like the discussion has stalled out at no consensus. Can an admin please close this one? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Oshwah, KrakatoaKatie, and Favonian: Can someone please close off this discussion? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @LightandDark2000: Not one of the pinged users, but I've gone ahead and closed the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Oshwah, KrakatoaKatie, and Favonian: Can someone please close off this discussion? Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1542 days ago on 6 October 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this usability-related discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see consensus in that discussion, I don't see a "test" that is feasible without WMF involvement, and/but I'm not willing to close a discussion that has been archived for 4 months. I suggest this be closed with no action. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- 力 given that it's archived... does it really need to be closed? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli: I meant to suggest the WP:ANRFC thread be closed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- 力 ah, I see. I think the consensus there is pretty clearly "no consensus", so yeah, no action would be appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} for the bot. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- 力 ah, I see. I think the consensus there is pretty clearly "no consensus", so yeah, no action would be appropriate. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli: I meant to suggest the WP:ANRFC thread be closed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- 力 given that it's archived... does it really need to be closed? Elli (talk | contribs) 01:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1403 days ago on 23 February 2021) It is possible that this one doesn't need formal closure, but I'd rather that an uninvolved editor close it due to the potential for continual reverts. Hzh (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1397 days ago on 28 February 2021) Consensus is not eminently clear, so an uninvolved closure would be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. The community hasn't reached a consensus there.—S Marshall T/C 16:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1373 days ago on 24 March 2021) - Requesting formal closure by an uninvolved experienced editor and listing at WP:RSP as appropriate. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1375 days ago on 23 March 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1437 days ago on 19 January 2021) Could an uninvolved editor please review this external link discussion, which includes two older discussions here and here? Thank you very much! Daranios (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1408 days ago on 17 February 2021) - This is long dead, despite attracting occasional SPAs. An experienced and uninvolved closer familiar with policies in the area is kindly asked to bring an end to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)]
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1396 days ago on 2 March 2021) Requesting a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. Despite the canvassing template, I saw no indication of canvassing. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1416 days ago on 10 February 2021) Requesting a formal close as consensus is unclear and editors are still occasionally replace the image under discussion. It would be helpful to have a consensus (or lack of) to point at. I would close myself, but I am involved so it mightn't be wise.
SSSB (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1389 days ago on 9 March 2021) This is a fairly contentious discussion as you might guess. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1424 days ago on 2 February 2021) Could an uninvolved editor please assess whether consensus exists at this village pump discussion? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1400 days ago on 26 February 2021) Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
{{Done}} (Initiated 1385 days ago on 12 March 2021) Discussion has concluded and a formal close would be very helpful, so that it could be listed at WP:RSP. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1418 days ago on 8 February 2021) Requesting uninvolved and experienced editor. Discussion has mostly died out at this time of posting. starship.paint (exalt) 23:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThadeusOfNazereth (talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1377 days ago on 21 March 2021) Requesting formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator. At time of request, discussions seem to have ended. Happily888 (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Happily888: This is going to sit here for a bit. It is too early and the RfC tag has not expired. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. I think discussion has pretty much slowed to a stand-still though, although it should be alright to leave this request open for a little longer...could I still ask if it could be closed prior to 9:00 19 April 2021 (UTC), as by then the show will be close to premiering. Happily888 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1422 days ago on 3 February 2021) Noticed this unclosed RFC was referenced here, so thought I would list it here for closure. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- @GretLomborg: {{done}} and listed at WP:Perennial sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1548 days ago on 1 October 2020)
- The debate is taking place in two separate talkpages, and an editor has closed the debate in one of them perhaps without realizing that no overall consensus has been reached in both talkpages.
- The debate is here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:KOI-4878.01 and here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal (closed)
- @Trurle @Figuerai @Astronomyeditionwiki @Kepler-1229b and me (5 editors) are in favor of keeping it as it is now, and SevenSpheresCelestia, Lithopsian, Ardenau4, Headbomb, and Davidbuddy9 (5 editors) are in favor of merging it.
- Consensus has been reached to merge KOI-2124.01, KOI-7617.01, and KOI-7923.01, but not KOI-4878.01.
- After several months of debate, I would appreciate if an administrator properly closes the debate as consensus reached to merge all the pages except KOI-4878.01, and removes the 'merge' notice from the page.
- Thank you, cheers. ExoEditor 03:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ExoEditor: Traditionally, any competent, experienced editor in good standing may make a closure so long as they are technically capable of implementing it. Is there a reason you ask for an administrator specifically? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @ExoEditor: {{done}} and closed as no consensus to merge (though I am not an admin). A loose necktie (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ExoEditor: Traditionally, any competent, experienced editor in good standing may make a closure so long as they are technically capable of implementing it. Is there a reason you ask for an administrator specifically? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1473 days ago on 14 December 2020) Requesting experienced and uninvolved editor. Open for quite some time. Discussion has died out at this point. starship.paint (exalt) 22:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: {{done}} and closed as No consensus as to reliability. A loose necktie (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1542 days ago on 6 October 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this usability-related discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this was re-listed, nobody (else) seemed to object to my assessment of "no consensus and no need to formally close a discussion that has been archived for over 3 months". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Saying "it seems like no consensus at first glance, so I'm not going to bother to close" defeats the purpose of this noticeboard—if one has fully read and assessed the discussion, then go ahead and close it (that can be done either within the archive or by resurrecting it, but the norm is that when a major discussion is listed here, it receives a proper close even if it has been archived by the time someone gets to it), and if one have not fully read and assessed the discussion, then don't render a judgement. As someone who has fully read it, my assessment would not be no consensus—it would be no consensus for a permanent switch but weak consensus for a trial given the slight numerical majority and stronger argumentation of the supports. I'm obviously not going to make that close myself given I was a participant, but that's exactly why it's listed here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: {{Done}} Closed as no consensus, with further explanation there. A loose necktie (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Saying "it seems like no consensus at first glance, so I'm not going to bother to close" defeats the purpose of this noticeboard—if one has fully read and assessed the discussion, then go ahead and close it (that can be done either within the archive or by resurrecting it, but the norm is that when a major discussion is listed here, it receives a proper close even if it has been archived by the time someone gets to it), and if one have not fully read and assessed the discussion, then don't render a judgement. As someone who has fully read it, my assessment would not be no consensus—it would be no consensus for a permanent switch but weak consensus for a trial given the slight numerical majority and stronger argumentation of the supports. I'm obviously not going to make that close myself given I was a participant, but that's exactly why it's listed here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#People's birthdate, conflicting (reliable) sources, and WP:SYNTHESIS
(Initiated 1382 days ago on 15 March 2021) - Requesting review and closure by an uninvolved experienced editor or administrator. If this discussion is archived at that time, please restore from archive and then close. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor: {{Done}} with a consensus to include all birth dates for which there are reliable sources, noting discrepancies. A loose necktie (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- @A loose necktie: Thank you for the ping & for the close. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1458 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? Asleep Next to Science was recently reviewed at AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: {{Done}} with consensus to split, provided new article is sufficiently different and adequately sourced. A loose necktie (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1426 days ago on 31 January 2021) This controversial BLP RFC needs an uninvolved close. Discussion has long since stopped. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
- But be aware that after a very long series of RfCs and deeply discussed drafts (which overlapped this Philosophy Tube discussion), MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME have been heavily revised, and merged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs formal closure as the outcome is clear—see Talk:Philosophy Tube#Conclusion. I've already implemented the consensus and it's been standing for over a month without an experienced editor disputing it or that the RfC achieved consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} as no formal closure appears necessary at this point. A loose necktie (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs formal closure as the outcome is clear—see Talk:Philosophy Tube#Conclusion. I've already implemented the consensus and it's been standing for over a month without an experienced editor disputing it or that the RfC achieved consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1411 days ago on 15 February 2021) nableezy - 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC) 17:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1405 days ago on 20 February 2021)- This RFC has been running for over a month, and since this RFC would have major effects if it passed, it would probably be a good idea for a very experienced uninvolved editor to close this one.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Jackattack1597: {{Done}} closed as No consensus . FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1440 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could use a closing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: {{Done}} with no consensus for the use of the word "coup". A loose necktie (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1380 days ago on 17 March 2021) Could an admin please close this move discussion? Thank you, Some1 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Some1: {{Done}} with a consensus to move. A loose necktie (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1378 days ago on 19 March 2021) Discussion has wound down with what looks like no consensus. Was relisted twice already, second time was over 10 days ago. A loose necktie (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1426 days ago on 31 January 2021) Discussion on reducing the content in a subsection of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} @Onetwothreeip: the link above does not show the discussion in question-- without this, there can't be a closure. Was it archived? Can you provide a link to the archive? Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1428 days ago on 28 January 2021) Expired RfC with no discussion since February 2021 that would benefit from a formal close by an experienced and uninvolved editor for WP:RSP. Note that this was also bizarrely archived again at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_331#RfC: Asian News International (ANI). — MarkH21talk 16:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1358 days ago on 9 April 2021) Snow is falling and I see the discussion will be archived. If this request for closure is improper, then please feel free to close this request. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1396 days ago on 1 March 2021) – Please close this discussion when possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 05:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Iffy★Chat -- 15:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1392 days ago on 5 March 2021) This RfC has been running for just under three weeks, with a modest number of participants. It would be good if an uninvolved editor could consider closing it. Boud (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1392 days ago on 6 March 2021) This RfC has been running for just over a month and discussion has died down. There are a few arguments in there between Option 1 (generally reliable) and Option 2 (marginally reliable/additional considerations apply), and several editors gave different ratings depending on the time at which the piece was published (noting that earlier Kommersant pieces may have been more reliable than more recently published ones (á la Newsweek). Some editors (including me) give a WP:USEBYOTHERS argument, while other editors generally draw concerns regarding Media freedom in Russia. Since I'm involved and it's not crystal clear to me what the outcome is owing to relative support for the arguments presented on each side, I'm posting here to ask for formal closure from an uninvolved editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Update: It's been archived to here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I propose to revive it and eventually close it so efforts are not lost. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Alexander Davronov, since you participated in the RfC, it would be better if someone uninvolved (i.e. someone who didn't participate in the RfC) closed it. However, please feel free to close any of the other RfCs listed on this page for which you are uninvolved, which would reduce the backlog and indirectly help this RfC get closed sooner. — Newslinger talk 16:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: I proposed that a third-party doing it, not me.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, just checking. "I propose to revive it and eventually close it" is unclear. — Newslinger talk 16:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would also support it being revived and closed by a third party, as the nominator of the RfC and the one who put the request on this board. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Newslinger: I proposed that a third-party doing it, not me.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Alexander Davronov, since you participated in the RfC, it would be better if someone uninvolved (i.e. someone who didn't participate in the RfC) closed it. However, please feel free to close any of the other RfCs listed on this page for which you are uninvolved, which would reduce the backlog and indirectly help this RfC get closed sooner. — Newslinger talk 16:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1953 days ago on 22 August 2019) (even earlier, considering the original round of discussion; poll per se opened 30 January 2021; and continuing to present in a forked thread). This discussion, technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag, has languished about a year and and half, with considerable controversy (especially Jan.–Mar. of this year), but has now archived without resolution. It has since spawned a rehash thread at Talk:Sophie (musician)#Birth name yet again, but this is clearly not going to produce the kind of clear poll the last discussion did. This needs assessment and closure, or it's just never going to end. The key issue is that some parties have latched onto the following from WP:BDP as an excuse to suppress the birth name of a dead person:
The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.
It seems dubious that these conditions are met in this case (and "can" certainly does not mean "must"), though that's up to the closure assessor, I guess. Importantly, we just recently had a very lengthy series of RfCs at WT:MOSBIO (still visible atop that page) which resulted in major revisions to MOS:DEADNAME, and the relevant portions have tightened, not loosened, in this regard; i.e., they are taken to apply strictly to living persons, not to dead ones, including recently deceased ones. These changes overlapped the un-RfC at this article, and despite the lack of a clear closure of that un-RfC, the name has continued to be suppressed in this article, without a clear consensus or WP:P&G basis to do so.
Given that the archived discussion has WP:TALKFORKed / WP:MULTIed a new thread, I think it would be wise to un-archive this one and then close it, and leave it to be re-archived automatically over time, and also mark the other thread closed as a redundant and moot discussion fork.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 23:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1365 days ago on 2 April 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, discussion was automatically archived without closure, and reviewing it now I don't see much of a reason to unarchive and close. The discussion appears to have ended inconclusively, and no specific edit proposals appear to be at stake. Moreover, the entire context of the discussion, which focused on what is or isn't ok to say in Wikipedia voice pending the outcome of a court trial, would appear to be moot now that a guilty verdict has been reached. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1345 days ago on 21 April 2021) Withdrawn, by me as nom. Article has changed radically. Too many have offered views for a self close. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} - per WP:WDAFD, you cannot withdraw an AfD nom once it's been supported by somebody else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1352 days ago on 14 April 2021) The RfC has elapsed. I believe consensus is abundantly clear, though I am involved . The discussion was not unanimous, so I hesitate to make the formal close myself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: {{not done}} This RfC has not "elapsed", it still has 20 days left to run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1382 days ago on 15 March 2021) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1380 days ago on 17 March 2021) – Please close this requested move. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- That's not a requested move. There is a requested move elsewhere on the same page, at Talk:Confederate naming commission#Requested move 17 March 2021. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 00:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1390 days ago on 8 March 2021) It should not be difficult to close this but I think I may be involved. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1388 days ago on 10 March 2021) TFD (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1384 days ago on 13 March 2021) - Discussion has concluded (I've just restored it from the archive) but would benefit from formal closure and, possibly, a listing at WP:RSP. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion has continued in a significant way after the discussion was restored. I am waiting before considering a close here (and am tagging not to archive before the end of the month). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1369 days ago on 28 March 2021) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1363 days ago on 3 April 2021) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1446 days ago on 10 January 2021) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- As a quick note, the way I read the discussion (with the heavy disclaimer that I am the proposer) is that there were some consensuses (or at least communal sentiments) reached that went beyond the specific original proposal. I would appreciate it if the closer could assess with an eye toward how this discussion should guide future efforts at reforming English variant notices, rather than just giving a straight adopted/not adopted result. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Generally agree with Sdkb on that. At this point, the proposal (technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag) has archived without closure, and this is not good, since the issue is going to continue to result in squabbling if not settled. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @SMcCandlish: I have restored it from the archive and added the "do not archive" template. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Generally agree with Sdkb on that. At this point, the proposal (technically not an RfC since it lacked an RfC tag) has archived without closure, and this is not good, since the issue is going to continue to result in squabbling if not settled. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1376 days ago on 22 March 2021) I'd appreciate an editor reviewing and closing this move discussion, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1374 days ago on 23 March 2021) Has been opened for at least 30 days now; shouldn't be difficult to close this one since the consensus is clear. Some1 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1370 days ago on 27 March 2021) – Please close this move review discussion. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 00:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by S Marshall. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 14:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1375 days ago on 22 March 2021) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1413 days ago on 12 February 2021) Someone please close this merge. A clear consensus has been reached and it has not received any new comments in over a week. Link20XX (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1988 days ago on 19 July 2019) I am seeking a neutral editor to review this discussion to establish consensus on whether or not some sort of description of Byrd's KKK involvement ought be included in the article summary, though I don't believe there has been a serious discussion of how such a sentence should be written yet. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with no consensus for changes to lede. After 1.75 years, whatever level of serious discussion that is likely to take place probably already has. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1374 days ago on 24 March 2021) There are only three editors active in closing CfDs, and all of them are involved in this discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Resolved}} This has been closed now. — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1668 days ago on 3 June 2020) Needs an uninvolved close, among one of the shorter discussions. Thanks. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1433 days ago on 23 January 2021) A quasi-RfC. To paraphrase the summary of another participant, "I'm pretty certain that the specific proposed wording can be overall considered successful (even the one who initially opposed didn't continue to do so after clarifications)". I'm also a participant in the discussion (author of said proposed guideline wording), so someone else needs to close this, and a formal closure would actually be beneficial. This has been open long enough it will archive away soon. If that happens, it will probably be in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221 (or 222, depending on what the archver bot does) and should be fished back out the main talk page for closure. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a consensus to generally omit stress marks per existing policies and guidelines. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1373 days ago on 24 March 2021) The page has a very contentious history and the outcome of the RfC is not 100% clear. By the way, I am aware that the section heading sucks, and it's my own fault. JBchrch (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a consensus to retain the challenged text. Note that consensus has never been held to require 100% clarity. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1373 days ago on 25 March 2021) I opened this RfC, and a recent, related fringe noticeboard thread that spun out has just closed. Since the discussion was not unanimous, I was involved in both threads, and this was my first time opening an RfC, I thought I should request a formal close. —Wingedserif (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a consensus to retain the controversy section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 5 March 2021) The result is clear, but a formal closure by any experienced editor is requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus for Option A. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1366 days ago on 31 March 2021) The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1366 days ago on 1 April 2021) The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus to focus on Goths as described by modern scholarship. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1364 days ago on 2 April 2021) The page has a contentious history. Closure by an administrator is requested. Krakkos (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus to substantially trim these sections and a rough consensus to use the proposed text as a basis for further refinement. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1364 days ago on 3 April 2021) Clearly a WP:SNOW case, but this is still being disputed by one very persistent user so would require an uninvolved closer to take a look. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - The RFC has been closed. The MOS has not yet been updated, but will be updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1415 days ago on 10 February 2021) I was involved in the discussion, though it's very close. The discussion largely focused on whether to keep a "controversy" section within the page for Chinese Communist Party or whether it would be better to split it off into its own article. There has not been discussion in over a month. If an experienced editor could take a look and provide closure, it would be helpful for moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus to remove the "Controversy" section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1350 days ago on 16 April 2021) An overspill discussion from the somewhat tetchy RFC that we had concerning hyphenated parameters in citation templates. The original RFC was closed with the decision not to deprecate the unhyphenated params, but the question here is whether those params should still be tracked using a category. — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1391 days ago on 7 March 2021) - An experienced editor familiar with policies is invited to close this well attended (but slightly disrupted) discussion and determine if there is consensus for any of the presented options. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Restored from archive and closed per this request and current request on article talk page. Closed with a clear consensus to remove the contestant's progress table. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1380 days ago on 18 March 2021) Could someone, preferably an admin, close the discussion on whether or not to include the names of victims for the 2021 Atlanta spa shooting WikiVirusC(talk) 23:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1333 days ago on 3 May 2021). Clearly a WP:SNOWBALL. After all the drama at WP:FTN then WP:RSN, and many previous rounds of this stuff, including ArbCom (see WP:ARBR&I), this needs to be administratively closed and subjected to a several-year moratorium. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1574 days ago on 4 September 2020). I don't think this RFC was ever intitiated correctly, but it doesn't seem like it was formally closed either. It seems pretty clear that B has consensus (which was the status quo) so I'm assuming that's why it was never closed. Note: this RFC is not to be confused with the one lower on the page that is recent and ongoing. Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Closed previously by Alexander Davronov Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1474 days ago on 13 December 2020). Original proposal came from a sockpuppet, and the only clear consensus seems to be that discussion has not been useful, as the conversation has seemingly been brigaded and affected by sockpuppets on all sides. @Vanilla Wizard: has suggested a new discussion may be useful, and I agree, but I also think an assessment of this particular RfC from an uninvolved editor would be helpful for going forward. - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed as no consensus due to a lack of quality participation and high levels of disruption. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1332 days ago on 4 May 2021). Consensus seems extremely clear in the affirmative, though there's at least a non-trivial question of wording that makes me not fully comfortable to close it myself as an involved editor. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by others with Special:Diff/1022725806. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1331 days ago on 6 May 2021) Opened only a week ago but looking rather WP:SNOWy, need uninvolved close though. Thanks. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 20:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1356 days ago on 10 April 2021) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maile66 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I think I started a close for this at the same time as you and have only just seen this comment when I came to mark it as done. I dropped a note on IRC (although my bouncer might disconnect before you get around) but feel free to revert or overwrite my close if you have something written up as well, especially if you see the discussion differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} for the bot Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I think I started a close for this at the same time as you and have only just seen this comment when I came to mark it as done. I dropped a note on IRC (although my bouncer might disconnect before you get around) but feel free to revert or overwrite my close if you have something written up as well, especially if you see the discussion differently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1678 days ago on 23 May 2020) Almost a year old discussion with limited participation, could do with an uninvolved close though. Thanks. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 03:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a reasonably clear consensus for the 2018 photo in the infobox. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 15 April 2021) While never RfC tagged this was listed on WP:CENT for over a month and refers to a policy discussion that could usefully be clarified. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Duplicate request, already listed above (in the Requests for Comment section). * Pppery * it has begun... 19:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1365 days ago on 1 April 2021) This discussion is about a proposal to merge another article into the target article listed above. The discussion has gone stale for three weeks since the last comment on 30 April 2021, with no support for the OP's proposal thus far. An uninvolved administrator or editor doing a procedural close would be appreciated. Haleth (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1343 days ago on 24 April 2021) Requesting an uninvolved close for this RfC, AP2 BLP. Thanks. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 03:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
De minimis discussion turned feral. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} The purpose of venue is, per the editnotice,
for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia
. You are not requesting a summary of this discussion, and are instead requesting that it be declared procedurally invalid, and your request is therefore outside the scope of this page. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1353 days ago on 13 April 2021)
Hi. An RfC on the wording of an article heading was opened at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman on 13 April, and it has had no additional input since 9 May. Could an uninvolved admin or editor drop by and close it, please? Thanks in advance. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 23 April 2021)
I am requesting a formal administrator close of this RfC which follows years of contentious discussions. To avoid a WP:BADNAC, an administrator close is needed when The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1474 days ago on 13 December 2020) Long overdue, but probably a good idea to formally close this RfC given the subject area. The subject of the RfC was whether or not to include information about the 2020 Vienna attack in this article. --Griboski (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - jc37 12:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1357 days ago on 10 April 2021) Will an uninvolved experienced editor please close this RFC? This seems to be a close call, and some of the editors have been contentious in the past, so that an administrative close might be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - jc37 13:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1325 days ago on 12 May 2021) Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC when the time for closure is due and/or the discussion is no longer active. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. The ruling is likely to be controversial. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - yet - Not 30 days yet. I will note that I am concerned that the survey section headers say "Voting"... - jc37 14:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1379 days ago on 18 March 2021) Split proposal that petered out without a clear result. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Blantant forum thread, and is now degenerating into some personal comments as well. It was closed and has now be restored. It actually needs removing as it seems to me to be there to make a point that would not be permitted in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The point is to not twist a living and public medical examiner's sworn testimony into the complete opposite of what he said, anywhere on Wikipedia. Or any BLP'S reliably sourced words. It's defamatory. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. – bradv🍁 14:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1419 days ago on 6 February 2021) the article falls under the AA2 area. The subject is whether to write the Armenian name of the city, Shushi, in bold in the lead. After a lot of discussions (and a sockpuppetry case) the RfC stagnated. To me the discussion seems like policy vs tendentious arguments with a clear result but as an involved editor I don't get a say in that. I request an uninvolved admin person closes the RfC. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC), 21:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevo327:, uninvolved editors can close RfCs too, but were you specifically seeking an administrator for a reason? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: it doesn't make a difference to me, but considering that the RfC subject falls under the Armenian-Azerbayjan 2 sanctions area I thought it would be better. - Kevo327 (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1320 days ago on 17 May 2021) Seeking an uninvolved closer for this RfC. Last comment was five days ago. The conversation on this talk page appears to have moved on to other matters, but the RfC was contentious enough that a formal close would be helpful. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- This was {{Done}} by @Buidhe: (apparently without having seen this request). Many thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1343 days ago on 24 April 2021) Consensus seems to be against merging, can this be closed please because it is holding up the article from appearing on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} (t · c) buidhe 02:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1340 days ago on 26 April 2021) The discussion regarded the reliability of two related sources (as well as whether or not the sources should be blacklisted). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 15 April 2021) Thanks.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1348 days ago on 19 April 2021) Uninvolved editor needed please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1336 days ago on 30 April 2021) For now the consensus for a move is clear. Would like for someone uninvolved to close this. Avilich (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1317 days ago on 19 May 2021) Soliciting a closure so the page can be moved as the normal seven-day listing period has elapsed and consensus has becomes clear and discussion has slowed, per WP:RMCLOSE. Uninvolved editor is needed, thank you. AshMusique (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} as of a bit ago. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1363 days ago on 4 April 2021) – This has been open quite awhile. Commenters are asking that this please be closed. - jc37 22:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1374 days ago on 23 March 2021) It's a long, winding discussion. There was socking involved. It should get a formal close. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1478 days ago on 9 December 2020) Quite an old merger discussion, that could to with an uninvolved close. Thanks. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 08:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1332 days ago on 4 May 2021) The discussion went stale for almost two weeks. Uninvolved editor is needed. George Ho (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed as merge. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1299 days ago on 6 June 2021) This has only been open a couple days, however, 11 editors have weighed-in to oppose the proposal with the only editor supporting it being the proposer her/himself. I feel like this is ready for a WP:SNOW. Chetsford (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Extraordinary Writ. Heartfox (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 30 May 2021) A clear consensus has been reached so I'd like for an admin to close this Talk:Lee_Tae-min#Requested_move_30_May_2021. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1326 days ago on 11 May 2021) The discussion above has been moving very slowly since it was brought up, though it looks like there is generally agreement on the proposal. The proposal has been on the noticeboard for over three weeks at this point, and it would be nice to have some sort of close on the discussion in light of this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}} at this point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1365 days ago on 1 April 2021) There's been a lot of contention over the cricket notability guidelines, with large numbers of AfDs recently causing much discussion within the project and outside of the project, and the RfC period has just ended. I'm requesting a formal closure from someone uninvolved in the discussion and who hasn't been majorly involved in the discussions at WP:NSPORTS as we're keen as a project to potentially implement the proposal, or work on different changes if not implemented. Further details on the proposal can be found above the RfC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that the proposal has now been archived without closure on the WikiProject Cricket talk page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Restored per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and closed with a rough consensus to implement the proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1351 days ago on 15 April 2021) Well-advertised on T:CENT, this RfC has important policy implications that will benefit from a formal closure. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- In my view, that discussion intersects with Trust & Safety and the current anti-harassment RFC to such a large extent that it should either be closed by Maggie Dennis personally, or by a panel that includes her, or by an independent community member who has received her feedback prior to closing.—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Right, and various policies and proposals try to do the same. They're almost all community policies, made and enforced. This is the same; it's an issue about amending a community policy, discussed by volunteers, and should be closed by any suitable community member, the same as any other discussion. If the WMF wants to setup a Board policy on this and thinks the community's views will be helpful, they could read the discussion or the summary of the consensus reached (ie, 'the close'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't really agree with that: I think that the whole point of (legitimate) undisclosed alternate accounts is to avoid harassment.—S Marshall T/C 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- T&S has no mandate to set community policy. The board can set their own policies that override community ones, but seem to have no intention on setting policies on multiple and/or privacy accounts. That specific discussion is a community process, so any suitably experienced volunteer should feel free to close it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
{{not done}}I looked at this with a view to closing it. I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally. The RfC initiator said "I've not proposed specific wording, this is more about looking for consensus on the ideas, the wordsmiths can get in there and create the appropriate wording if such a consensus is reached". However, no consensus was reached about whether changes to the status quo are in fact desired, let alone what specific changes. I actually don't think a formal closure is beneficial; users are free to start a fresh discussion in future. If you still believe a formal closure is beneficial, please clarify what it will achieve? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- @Ncmvocalist: If there was no consensus, and frankly when I've read that discussion I do see a consensus even if it's not identical to one of the three options that first was offered, that can be a close. But this was a centrally notified discussion which a nice level of participation and consensus can be reached about an outcome even if policy change language would then need to be identified and workshopped. Considering that this is a longstanding policy a NC would be significant. A well worded and thoughtful close helps to give shape and structure to what next steps would be for interested editors. I would ask that you reconsider this idea that it is not a discussion that needs to be closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49:: Thank you. On reconsidering this, I've reversed the "not done"; a detailed closure is needed after all for the reasons you have said. For the avoidance of doubt, I was open to reconsidering, which is what prompted my question and my choice not to alter the archive tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: I support a closure for the same reasons as Barkeep. Given the number of editors that have been blocked under PROJSOCK, clarification on this issue of policy is important moving forward. If you feel you
can'tdon't want to close it, I would encourage you to remove the|done=yesparameter so thatananother uninvolved editor can. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- That won't prevent this thread from being archived, you need to remove or disable the
{{not done}}to achieve that.|done=yesmeans "no further action";{{not done}}means "this may be archived because it will not be carried out". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- @Sdrqaz:: I understand that as a participant in the RfC that you would like a particular outcome, but as a matter of courtesy, you might want to consider how your last sentence reads. I am an uninvolved editor and already said "I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally". My initial view not to formally close was not about whether one can or can't, but rather, what the closure would achieve, as I already asked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: As a participant of course I'm involved, but (believe it or not) if it doesn't get closed in the way I !voted I wouldn't mind. Discussions aren't battles to be won or lost, after all. Given you used the {{Not done}} template instead of {{On hold}} or {{MoreInfo}}, it seemed like you were declining to close the discussion, and said you didn't
think a formal closure is beneficial
. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't uninvolved (nor was I questioning your closing ability) and have amended my comment accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)- @Sdrqaz: no worries, thank you; I'll take that on board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: As a participant of course I'm involved, but (believe it or not) if it doesn't get closed in the way I !voted I wouldn't mind. Discussions aren't battles to be won or lost, after all. Given you used the {{Not done}} template instead of {{On hold}} or {{MoreInfo}}, it seemed like you were declining to close the discussion, and said you didn't
- @Sdrqaz:: I understand that as a participant in the RfC that you would like a particular outcome, but as a matter of courtesy, you might want to consider how your last sentence reads. I am an uninvolved editor and already said "I don't think there is any issue with closing the RfC, personally". My initial view not to formally close was not about whether one can or can't, but rather, what the closure would achieve, as I already asked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- That won't prevent this thread from being archived, you need to remove or disable the
- I also support a closure, because this is an important discussion which could have wide ranging implications. I encourage Ncmvocalist to remove the not done to prevent this being archived without a closure.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've deactivated the done tag, since there seems to be a consensus above that a closure is preferable (and I agree). ProcSock (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jackattack1597: It might have been misunderstood, but I didn't intend for this to be archived as yet - as I expected a response to my question before deciding whether to let this be archived or to formally close this. Subsequently, someone else boldly added the archive link in good faith thinking that I might have forgotten. In any case, thank you ProcSock for deactivating it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: That edit did not
add the archive link
, please read my post of 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC). The|done=yesparameter of{{initiated}}does two things, and no more: it de-colours the "Initiated X days ago on 15 April 2021" text, and instructs the template not to put the thread in Category:Administrative backlog. - It was your own edit that marked this thread for archiving, and all I did was tidy up an inconsistency, which was hardly a bold action. See the last paragraph of the notice that was presented to you when you posted here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Ah right; thank you for clarifying what the parameter/edit actually does, as I was mistaken above. Your post of 25 May 2021 actually said
{{Not done}}template means "thismay
be archived because it will not be carried out" and that the|done=yesparameter indicates "no further action"; I read this to be consistent with my understanding that the archival isn't guaranteed if the parameter isn't inserted. I didn't see the changes that were made over the last year to the notice you have linked to, but it currently says that{{Not done}}means "thiswill
automatically archive". In future, I'll use the{{On hold}}template instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)- I intended "no further action" to be read as "no further action on this thread is required by any living human", but that seemed to contain much that was redundant. I suppose that if taken to its ultimate conclusion, "no further action" could be interpreted as "nobody, not even archiving bots, is to do anything with this thread, it must be left set in stone for all eternity". We don't really want that, I think.
- As an example of how ClueBot III operates, see the edit immediately following your last post here - in that edit, three threads were archived, of which two have both
|done=yesand{{done}}, whereas the third has only{{not done}}. It is clear that for the third thread, ClueBot III has picked up on the presence of the{{not done}}, whilst the lack of|done=yeshas not influenced the bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Ah right; thank you for clarifying what the parameter/edit actually does, as I was mistaken above. Your post of 25 May 2021 actually said
- @Ncmvocalist: That edit did not
- @Jackattack1597: It might have been misunderstood, but I didn't intend for this to be archived as yet - as I expected a response to my question before deciding whether to let this be archived or to formally close this. Subsequently, someone else boldly added the archive link in good faith thinking that I might have forgotten. In any case, thank you ProcSock for deactivating it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ncmvocalist: If there was no consensus, and frankly when I've read that discussion I do see a consensus even if it's not identical to one of the three options that first was offered, that can be a close. But this was a centrally notified discussion which a nice level of participation and consensus can be reached about an outcome even if policy change language would then need to be identified and workshopped. Considering that this is a longstanding policy a NC would be significant. A well worded and thoughtful close helps to give shape and structure to what next steps would be for interested editors. I would ask that you reconsider this idea that it is not a discussion that needs to be closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus that undisclosed alternate accounts are used at the risk of the editor with no guarantees and a rough consensus that some limited level of participation in WP: and WT: namespaces is allowed. No particular formula for the exact nature of those limits established a consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1293 days ago on 12 June 2021) Requesting closure as Wikipedia:Snowball clause. The proposer is one of only two editors supporting the recommendation in the RfC and it is similar to two recent unsuccessful RfCs by the editor on the same article. Since it has no likelihood of succeeding, it should be closed.TFD (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} SNOWBALL indeed applies. Clear, convincing, and overwhelming consensus against the proposed changes. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1347 days ago on 19 April 2021) RM with accusations of apparent canvassing, as well as decent arguments from long-time users for both sides. Currently, the oldest unclosed RM in the backlog, no comments since ten days ago. Needs closure from an uninvolved admin who is somewhat experienced in closing discussions that have potentially been canvassed. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1289 days ago on 16 June 2021) Clear consensus to keep Drill it (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 25 May 2021) It's been a week and discussion is slowing; I see a fairly clear consensus and would like an admin to close. Tol | talk | contribs 16:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion appears to be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Topic ban (FleurDeOdile). Heartfox (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} This discussion was archived with no action at AN/I, and was then brought back at AN to again be archived with no action. Tol | talk | contribs 17:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1322 days ago on 15 May 2021) This has been open for a month, and is getting nowhere. Tol | talk | contribs 19:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1321 days ago on 15 May 2021) Discussion is listed at CENT and two of the subsections were closed early. Worth noting that the proposal under "Drop support for book class from WikiProject assessment" is moot if "Delete all books within the book namespace " passes. --Trialpears (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1709 days ago on 23 April 2020) I wasn't really involved here or anything (although I support the nominator's rationale) but I think I'm unqualified to close this discussion or to decide what's gonna happen to it. Although everyone seems to agree with the proposal, a total year of silence kinda baffles me. So, it would be good if a qualified person would step in and close it. Thanks. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed as passed. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1313 days ago on 23 May 2021) – Requesting closure by an uninvolved party. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1357 days ago on 10 April 2021) Not a formal RFC, but this discussion attracted plenty of attention anyway. It has been open for over a month now with no new comments since the end of April. -- Calidum 18:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 30 May 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1321 days ago on 15 May 2021) Discussion outcome is pretty clear, but since this was WP:CENT-listed, it should have a formal close for summary purposes so that it can be referenced more easily if it is revisited in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mz7. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1372 days ago on 26 March 2021) Note to closer: there were also two other relevant discussions, a BRFA (which was put on hold pending a closure to this discussion) and a conversation at Shortdesc helper talk (same situation there). — Goszei (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
{{Not done}}the conversation is spread across three venues, there is limited participation at each, disruption by a now-banned user, and a number of non-definitive comments from the users that did participate. Per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Which_discussions_need_to_be_closed, this is non-conducive to a consensus assessment. Although a "No consensus" close could be created, it would not help matters any more than simply leaving the discussion alone. Recommend a much more strongly-focused discussion take place at one venue. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)- Eggishorn I feel like a no consensus close would be beneficial if only to get a firm end and not questions about why you started a new discussion when the last one is open. I also have to wonder whether there's no consensus with regards to the implementation only or to whether the descriptions should be removed as well. --Trialpears (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-done Upon re-reading and Trialpears's request, I have marked it as "Discussion Failed" and archived the discussion. This should allow further focused discussions on removing or replacing the default list article descriptions to proceed. I did not see any indication that there was any support for retaining those if there is an agreed-upon substitute. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Eggishorn I feel like a no consensus close would be beneficial if only to get a firm end and not questions about why you started a new discussion when the last one is open. I also have to wonder whether there's no consensus with regards to the implementation only or to whether the descriptions should be removed as well. --Trialpears (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1361 days ago on 6 April 2021) Could someone please close and determine consensus for the discussion at WPTC? There are some additional related comments here. Keep in mind there are around 4–5 projects being discussed. NoahTalk 23:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus to proceed with the merger of the Wikiprojects. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1618 days ago on 23 July 2020) Requesting uninvolved closure here. During an ongoing discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, Hemiauchenia suggested that it may be worth placing here, owing to their view that there was consensus to deprecate. The source is used in >1000 articles. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Unarchived and closed with a clear consensus in favor of Option 4 (deprecation). The actual mechanics of deprecation will need to be carried out by administrators. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1343 days ago on 23 April 2021) Requesting uninvolved closure here please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I closed one proposal (@Nick Moyes and ProcrastinatingReader:), there is one more proposal left to close. starship.paint (exalt) 04:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Third proposal closed as no consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1296 days ago on 9 June 2021) – Requesting closure by uninvolved editor. Elizium23 (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Doing..., as discussion has died down. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1306 days ago on 31 May 2021) An uninvolved editor is needed. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @George Ho: - seriously? This discussion was started 1 day ago. From the way the discussion has started, it seems that nothing much may be agreed upon. This might not even need a closure. starship.paint (exalt) 09:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
{{not done}} Withdrawing for now. Will re-request if necessary. George Ho (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1338 days ago on 28 April 2021) Requesting uninvolved closure. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a rough consensus for Option 2 based on the strength of the arguments. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1394 days ago on 3 March 2021) Not a formal RfC, just a discussion that's going nowhere and won't die. It's a case of WP:IDHT, dragging on disruptively in spite of the proposals being clearly DOA because they violate MOS guidelines and are failing to gain significant support, let alone anything like consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with no consensus to rename the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1327 days ago on 9 May 2021) Initially closed by a non-admin on June 6 with just a !vote count (diff). Unclosed by an admin after discussion at this AN section. Would appreciate a new close. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1302 days ago on 3 June 2021) – The RFC was opened one week ago, however the matter has been extensively discussed in the previous section of the talk page for several weeks. Five people support this change, two oppose it, and nobody has been swayed. Cpotisch (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1277 days ago on 28 June 2021) WP:SNOW close needed Drill it (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Obvious snow keep (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 2 June 2021) Not a formal RfC. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 1 June 2021) This RM has been open for nearly a month, and these discussions don't tend to last more than a week unless they're relisted (which I can't find any signs of). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by No such user at 12:27 on 1 July 2021 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 24 June 2021) This is a clear SNOW Relist. It's been the standard 7 days and the vast majority of the !votes are for a Relist. For the record: I am actually one of the opposing Keep !votes, just trying to speed things along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by RoySmith. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1326 days ago on 10 May 2021) I think the result is clear even if comments from IP-users is included but since I made the proposal someone uninvolved should conclude. In case someone might find it relevant I can add that I do not think it is possible to make the result more clear by modifying the proposal. Thank you, --MGA73 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I originally set the date in my suggestion to "1 July 2021". If it is a problem that the date is now past then I do not mind if it is set to "1 August 2021" for example or the date when the proposal is closed. I just do not want to change the proposal and risk that we have to start all over. I hope someone will help me fix the possible problem I created. --MGA73 (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 25 May 2021) Requesting uninvolved closure. Thank you all! CatDamon (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information#RFC: Disease / pandemic origins.
- As of right now, there are 328,367 characters in this gigantic RfC. Several people have requested closure, and the survey stands at about 19 supports to 50 opposes. I am, of course, involved. A previous request for closure was made on this page 22 days ago, which doesn't seem to have been responded to. jp×g 17:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- JPxG, CatDamon, I think there are a few problems: yeah, it's long, so TLDR for many. I won't read the whole thing either. And both sides have reasonable arguments. And it's so big that nobody wants to risk angering that many people. I could close it, but I'd prefer if it was closed by three people - so two more uninvolved editors, so the close itself doesn't become controversial. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Then again, expecting two more uninvolved editors to go through this is probably a pipe dream. I closed it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- JPxG, CatDamon, I think there are a few problems: yeah, it's long, so TLDR for many. I won't read the whole thing either. And both sides have reasonable arguments. And it's so big that nobody wants to risk angering that many people. I could close it, but I'd prefer if it was closed by three people - so two more uninvolved editors, so the close itself doesn't become controversial. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1584 days ago on 25 August 2020) I request an uninvolved editor to close the debate about whether Baten Kaitos should or should not be a disambiguation page, in order to stop frequent toing-and-froing involving a small number of editors and a relatively minor page. The reviewer would need to read the discussions at Talk:Baten Kaitos#Redirect Baten Kaitos and at Talk:Baten Kaitos: Eternal Wings and the Lost Ocean. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I second this closure request. The consensus is clear with only one editor objecting. Skyerise (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1301 days ago on 5 June 2021) Discussion stalled on 12 June. Please can someone uninvolved close this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1312 days ago on 24 May 2021) This discussion has run for a month with no new !votes or comments in more than three weeks. Requesting closure from an experienced and uninvolved editor. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1308 days ago on 29 May 2021) Nardog (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1297 days ago on 8 June 2021) Can we please close this now, two SPA (one a with a total COI, that was blocked for sock and then unblocked by arbcom for no reason that I can see as they are a pure SPA) are just making the same arguments again and again and just not listening. It is totally circular and one massive BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Discussion hatted by Girth Summit. starship.paint (exalt) 02:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1306 days ago on 31 May 2021) Last vote was less than two weeks ago. Need uninvolved editor. George Ho (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Closure should also include subsections of the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @George Ho: {{done}} Mark83 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1297 days ago on 8 June 2021) The RfC template has expired and discussion has petered out. Thanks. ~ HAL333 18:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1285 days ago on 21 June 2021) The move request has attracted four participants, including the nominator (me). A formal closure would be nice. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1312 days ago on 24 May 2021) the discussion is no longer active. Frietjes (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1667 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an uninvolved editor please consider the consensus for Dawn (Michelangelo) and Dusk (Michelangelo) to the Medici Chapel, with discussion at Talk:Medici Chapel#Merge proposal. Klbrain (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as Merge FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1279 days ago on 27 June 2021) Somebody please close Module talk:Message box#Fully-protected edit request on 27 June 2021 (and possibly the preliminary thread at Template talk:Ambox#Why is ambox the only message box which the "small" parameter works with?) - it's going nowhere fast. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} No consensus, status quo obtains. Prelminary thread {{not done}}. Suggest separate closure request FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1331 days ago on 6 May 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor with experience and time to look carefully to make sure we can go ahead. The RFC concerns 2 draft texts (a shortened lead, and a shortened Origins section). The shortening idea was proposed and gained consensus in a previous RFC, and there was another RFC already closed where 3 different drafts of the Origins section failed to gain consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed as the proposed draft did not gain a consensus for implementation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1326 days ago on 10 May 2021) the discussion is no longer active. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is a tricky one because most TFD regulars happen to be INVOLVED. Plastikspork any chance you can look at this, as I think you're the only regular TfD closer who isn't involved in that discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1336 days ago on 30 April 2021) Requesting closure from an experienced and uninvolved editor. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 23:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a rough consensus for Option 5 (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1298 days ago on 8 June 2021) No new comments in over a week, and an involved close is needed here. Thanks. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 13:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I think that this should probably go the full 30 days, and I don't feel 100% comfortable closing it right now. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10:, the RFC has now expired. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
It's past a month, now. May we have the RFC closed? GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Again, will somebody please close the RFC-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by 78.26 already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Again, will somebody please close the RFC-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1276 days ago on 30 June 2021) No new comments in over 10 days. Requesting a formal close due to the length of the dispute and contentious subject matter. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1278 days ago on 27 June 2021) Significant participation, relatively popular article, no !votes in a while, clear outcome. BLP; WP:POVFORK concerns have been raised. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1284 days ago on 22 June 2021) As noted by The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), the discussion has reached a stalemate, and the user last edited in mainspace on July 1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1255 days ago on 21 July 2021) No responses in over 72 hours. Would appear an understanding has been reached. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 17:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
6 Week RFC type discussion at WP:Notability
(Initiated 1343 days ago on 23 April 2021) This was a 6 week discussion which was not formally identified as an RFC but was structured and discussed like one. I proposed a close and waited several weeks and then tried an edit based on it and was reverted based on there not being a close, which is fine. Would it be possible to get an admin close at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding one new thing to the current SNG text Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done for now per WP:PROPOSAL, there should have been wider notice for a change to a prominent guideline. Will be added to WP:CENT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000:, {{not done}} given that it has been given wider notice just now, you are welcome to return here with another request - but I'd suggest giving it another 2 weeks before deciding whether it is ready or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Eggishorn:@Ncmvocalist: Cool. Will do. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @North8000:, {{not done}} given that it has been given wider notice just now, you are welcome to return here with another request - but I'd suggest giving it another 2 weeks before deciding whether it is ready or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1325 days ago on 12 May 2021) Uninvolved administrator requested to close this RfC. The discussion that triggered this RfC is here, for reference. Thank you. PS. Previous request to close by administrator denied, but 30 days has passed and the discussion is not particularly active. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Someone has archived the RfC in the meantime. The link has been updated to reflect this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} That "someone" was Lowercase sigmabot III, a bot account that automatically archives old threads. Despite the request for a specifically administrator close, no admin has done so in at least a month and so the request is not relevant. The discussion was restored from the archive per WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE and closed as a discussion which reached no consensus on the reliability of Wikileaks as a source. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1306 days ago on 30 May 2021) —Michael Z. 18:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus for 1(C) and a rough consensus for a some combination of 2(C) with (D) or (E). (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1291 days ago on 14 June 2021)
Closure is requested for this expired RfC by an admin or experienced editor. IMO being mostly uninvolved (more clearly unbiased) with gender topics as a whole would be a plus. Crossroads -talk- 01:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 19 June 2021), this may be a complex closure. Some discussions are about the venue, others about the content. The closer will need to evaluate the ground rules to close it under. It is about a Draft: space item that may or may not be ready for main space and which may or may not be subject to AfD should it arrive there. Closing this discussion will allow whatever should happen next to happen. That includes deletion, moving to mainspace, acceptance at AfC by a reviewer (or others), and later AfD if nominated. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Timtrent: would you recommend leaving this to an admin, or would I be OK to take a look? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10 I think, when you take a look, you will see that it will be a challenging non admin closure.
- There is much to consider and all uninvolved opinions are important and welcome. I think it will be a difficult close, likely to be challenged, and will require a well argued and well rounded closing rationale whatever the decision is. I do think it is time to close this so that the decision is made and interested parties can move on in whatever direction the close makes happen. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- The last opinion was logged there on 5 July. Might someone please just check consensus and close it please? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- NOTE this has now been overtaken by events, and the draft has been moved to mainspace where MfD does not apply (0.9 probability). My view is that any uninvolved editor may close this as imposisble to determine giving the move to mainspace as a rationale, and that it should be allowed to take its chances in main space FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#"Conspiracy_theory"_is_a_value-laden_contentious_label
(Initiated 1432 days ago on 25 January 2021) This discussion has produced two (very messy looking) votes, which both resulted in a pretty clear consensus that no change to MOS is needed. As far as I see, the last bit of actual discussion took part in late March, so I doubt that consensus or discussion will evolve anymore. I don't feel qualified to close this myself (since it involves MOS, and since I never closed anything), so I'm formally requesting a close here. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a clear consensus that there is no reason to modify the MoS to cover "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" nor is there a need to create a separate category of the MoS to cover those terms or similarly "laden" terms like "philanthropist". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1342 days ago on 25 April 2021) Consensus seems to have been formed... the only Merge supporter other than the proposer is a now banned user. Aza24 (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1322 days ago on 15 May 2021) Discussion, non-RfC, about the reliablity of Game Rant, uninvolved closer requested. Thanks, regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed as Game Rant is a source that should be used with caution and for generally non-controversial topics. It should not be used for topics such as BLP's. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1280 days ago on 26 June 2021) – Would like an uninvolved person to assess consensus. Muhibm0307 (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1265 days ago on 10 July 2021) - while there is a consensus to move the page to Surfside condominium collapse, consensus seemed to have changed after one of the participants mentioned a different title. It may need a "no consensus" closure, or it may need a "moved" closure, IDK. Aasim (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by TheSameGuy at 17:29 on 24 July 2021 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1278 days ago on 28 June 2021) It's been a whole month now. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I was coming here to make the same closure request. This RfC has been open for a month now. The last edit to the discussion was eleven days ago. I believe this RfC is more than ready for closure. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1247 days ago on 29 July 2021) – There is a G3 prod on the page itself and an open AfD. A non-admin tried to close the AfD (in good faith) but obviously couldn't address the prod or deletion (so I reverted it). Incidentally, consensus has quickly been established for speedy deletion. If an admin could deal with the G3 and close the discussion, that'd be awesome. St★lwart111 08:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Qwaiiplayer at 12:39 on 29 July 2021 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks all. St★lwart111 23:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Moving Batman:_The_Long_Halloween,_Part_One to Batman:_The_Long_Halloween_(film)
(Initiated 1254 days ago on 21 July 2021) – Consensus has been reached after 7 days. See here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Batman:_The_Long_Halloween,_Part_One Thanks! 136.49.32.166 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by editor Lennart97 at 07:49 on 29 July 2021 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1258 days ago on 18 July 2021) Nothing is left to be said. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:Wugapodes - jc37 18:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1311 days ago on 25 May 2021) Closure would be helpful. The perceived ambiguity regarding consensus is causing regular edit war flare-ups. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC) {{Done}} Closed as a consensus that the statement should be: "The IMA calls Ayurvedic practitioners who claim to practice medicine 'Quacks'." (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1305 days ago on 1 June 2021) This particularly contentious move review follows a contentious requested move closed by an non-admin. Given the heated discussion in both venues, it may be advisable for an experienced admin closer (or even admin panel) to fairly address valid concerns from both sides in this discussion. Only two additional disposition assertions in last 7 days, but lots of chatter from previous !voters. (full disclosure: I have participated in both the RM and MR processes) BusterD (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I second that this is ready for closure. Last vote was on June 17. I agree that this is a contentious one and needs an admin to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I third! As far as I can tell, admin closure is required for move reviews. There's been just a smattering of responses since Novem Linguae's comment from a month ago (one of the smatters was mine, FYI). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by S Marshall. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- I third! As far as I can tell, admin closure is required for move reviews. There's been just a smattering of responses since Novem Linguae's comment from a month ago (one of the smatters was mine, FYI). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
And undone by @Somedifferentstuff: (while making a mess of the talk page archives), can somebody please fix this? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- @力: I don't see problems with the WP:MRV archives. Please be specific, which pages (including archives) are messed up here, and in what way? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
- At the time 力 posted, the article and talk page were at "attack", and the talk page archives were at "storming". However, someone came along and fixed it, and an admin move protected it. Hopefully we are all set now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1370 days ago on 27 March 2021) The main discussion and this revised proposal could both use a formal closure czar 03:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed as no consensus to implement the proposal (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1367 days ago on 31 March 2021) A major WP:CENT-listed discussion which deserves formal closure, including the pop-up notice subsection. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 29 May 2021) This would benefit from a formal, thoughtful closure to sift through the policy arguments made both for and against the suggestion and come to a conclusion on the consensus regarding the change. Additions to the discussion have been... trickling at best (most recent 6 days ago, second most recent 16) from editors new to the RfC/discussion, and as such I doubt keeping it open any longer is going to draw any more thoughtful opinions (nobody wants to touch this topic area anyway, it seems). Just as a note, I've placed a {{DNAU}} on the subthread for 31 days (to expire July 31 UTC), if this isn't actioned on and anyone wants to extend that further it would likely help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1291 days ago on 15 June 2021)
Based of a message on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with the request by Barkeep49 for an experienced uninvolved editor to close this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just a clarification: this RfC was started on 15 June 2021 and was announced to run for 30 days (see: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207#Pahonia), therefore on 15 July 2021 the Wikipedia:Consensus was reached and the majority of participants supported the A variant, which was proposed in a survey. -- Pofka (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with the request by Barkeep49 for an experienced uninvolved editor to close this RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 19 June 2021) This has been going on for a while. There's a couple policy-based arguments on both sides involving the wide latitude of user space, the impact of indefinite topic bans, and many other PAG arguments. Can we get a closure? Lab leak discussions soak up a lot of time, and usually devolve into arguments about the leak itself and not the page. The discussion itself about policies etc. is now becoming cyclical, and no new points have been made in several days. It would be very helpful if an uninvolved admin could come close this before that happens. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- The last !vote on this was added on July 9th. But the discussion has devolved a bit, as expected. Could an uninvolved admin please come close it so everyone can move on with their lives? It will likely be a difficult close, which is why it would be appreciated all the more. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1817 days ago on 5 January 2020) Been over a year since the discussion was opened. Long overdue for closing. Chlod (say hi!) 01:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1344 days ago on 23 April 2021) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: I may not be as experienced as you were hoping but this seemed like a fairly straightforward close.––FORMALDUDE(talk) 20:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)- I undid my closure of this thread as I have been involved in other discussions on Donald Trump, so I am not an uninvolved editor, as was pointed out to me by SPECIFICO. ––FormalDude talk (please notify me
{{U|FormalDude}}on reply) 23:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
- I undid my closure of this thread as I have been involved in other discussions on Donald Trump, so I am not an uninvolved editor, as was pointed out to me by SPECIFICO. ––FormalDude talk (please notify me
(Initiated 1260 days ago on 15 July 2021) Requesting for closure on photo debate, which ended in all opposing a while ago but recently started again when an ANI case on the proposer was filed. Still all opposing after a few days ANI case was closed. Seloloving (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1272 days ago on 4 July 2021) Abundantly clear consensus. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by GenQuest. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Turn on syntax highlighting by default for new accounts
(Initiated 1271 days ago on 5 July 2021) Month-old proposal where discussion is slowing and result may be actionable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1265 days ago on 10 July 2021) Consensus appears to have been reached. I'd like a formal close as this RfC has wide-reaching implications and a similar previous RfC also received a formal closure. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1282 days ago on 23 June 2021) M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 25 June 2021) No new comments in a week. Requesting a formal close. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 2 July 2021) Discussion appears to have run its course. Please can someone uninvolved close this. Spleodrach (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} although this really was eligible for the WP:SNOW clause... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1304 days ago on 1 June 2021) The move request has been under discussion has been open for over a month and was relisted over a week ago. The consensus appears to be clear for moving per nomination. Richiepip (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's been nearly 2 months since the RM was begun. Think it's time to close. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} If I must point out, the consensus was not clear. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1273 days ago on 3 July 2021) No discussion in 5 days, would like an uninvolved person to assess consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1253 days ago on 23 July 2021) Clear consensus to indef the user involved. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1305 days ago on 31 May 2021) Please take another look at this RfC about whether or not maintenance categories should or should not remain hidden from general readers. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by User:S Marshall - jc37 07:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- This might need another look? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by S Marshall at 14:04 on 7 August 2021 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 1 July 2021) Discussion has died down. Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} I closed this a while ago, and was unaware that it was also listed here. BD2412 T 18:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 2 July 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1303 days ago on 2 June 2021) nableezy - 15:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Anybody willing to evaluate consensus here? nableezy - 14:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by S Marshall, who either has been getting to these conversations independently of here; or somehow keeps forgetting the existence of this page once they've actually closed the discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1642 days ago on 29 June 2020) Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus for/against a proposal to merge Salami slicing and Salami tactics, being discussed at Talk:Salami slicing#Proposed merge of Salami tactics into Salami slicing. Klbrain (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1260 days ago on 15 July 2021) Seems to be wrapped up. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲(talk) 20:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- (involved editor) Not sure how someone could reasonably close this, in my view a follow-up RfC should be done. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: Would you mind starting one then? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I can do certainly, though I may just wait a bit to see if unvolved editors agree with my assessment. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: Would you mind starting one then? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} No formal closure necessary here (and it would be rather hard given the lack of structure here); if you judge that there is a need for a follow-up RfC you're free to do so yourself. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1243 days ago on 2 August 2021) Multiple editors have called for this discussion to be closed. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1286 days ago on 19 June 2021) This has been going on for a while. There's a couple policy-based arguments on both sides involving the wide latitude of user space, the impact of indefinite topic bans, and many other PAG arguments. Can we get a closure? Lab leak discussions soak up a lot of time, and usually devolve into arguments about the leak itself and not the page. The discussion itself about policies etc. is now becoming cyclical, and no new points have been made in several days. It would be very helpful if an uninvolved admin could come close this before that happens. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- The last !vote on this was added on July 9th. But the discussion has devolved a bit, as expected. Could an uninvolved admin please come close it so everyone can move on with their lives? It will likely be a difficult close, which is why it would be appreciated all the more. Thank you.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
- Close appears to have been reversed by closer. Probably needs a new close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- (Initiated 1237 days ago on 8 August 2021) It could use a close by an uninvolved admin close (A WP:NAC might be possible given the status of the proposals, but I'd suggest that would just create unneeded additional drama). Hobit (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
{{Inprogress}}- By Seraphimblade. [2] --Jack Frost (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)- {{done}} - By Seraphimblade (talk · contribs). [3] --Jack Frost (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1273 days ago on 3 July 2021) - Last !vote was more than a week ago. Issue requires an uninvolved editor close as there at least has not been a WP:SNOW result and it has relevance for a number of other pages. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Recent events may have mooted this particular discussion but as other maps are still being used that have the same sourcing and were made using the same methodology I think it still needs a formal close. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1229 days ago on 15 August 2021) Though this discussion was initiated a few hours ago, it appears the current situation necessitates an expedited closure with consensus appearing to be unclear. Muhibm0307 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by requestor, since there is no consensus. Muhibm0307 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1290 days ago on 15 June 2021) This GAR on the article Metroid Dread has dried up, and there appears to be a consensus on whether or not it should retain its current rank, but I'm not knowledgable enough to close the nomination and state a result. When I nominated, I almost mucked up the procedure, so I don't want to make that mistake. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Whiteguru. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 18 July 2021) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1252 days ago on 24 July 2021) The discussion has been stagnant for over two weeks. It resulted in a failed FAC and is obstructing a second FAC.~ HAL333 16:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1252 days ago on 23 July 2021) Requesting closure & consensus ruling, on this WP:JOBTITLES related RFC. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1232 days ago on 12 August 2021) Admin closure requested. This is a continuation of a previous discussion, started 6 August, that was auto-archived.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 2 July 2021) open over a month and the discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1255 days ago on 20 July 2021) open for several weeks and the discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1254 days ago on 21 July 2021) open for several weeks and the discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1513 days ago on 5 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1258 days ago on 18 July 2021) Requesting an admin close this RfC please. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1257 days ago on 18 July 2021) This is an article on a current event with heavy readership. Consensus is clear (18-6 total, more significantly 16-3 since sources were posted), and the open RFC is stalling our coverage. Alsee (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Since I got there from here, I'll give an emphatic reminder that this isn't a headcount. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Snow Rise (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1383 days ago on 15 March 2021) Old RfC it seems nobody got around to listing it, needs a close. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1279 days ago on 26 June 2021) After an extensive discussion, the most recent post was on 9 August 2021, and this RfC has drifted since into the archive. Please {{ping}} me however closed; a WMF employee has been asking me about the trial linked in the first sentence. Narky Blert (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1273 days ago on 2 July 2021) – After a substantial discussion on the subject proposal at the WP:Notability talk page I came here in early July to request a closure. @Eggishorn: reviewed it and said that an additional listing at centralized discussion allowing for that additional input would be the next step before closure. ( https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANotability&type=revision&diff=1033656759&oldid=1033654370 ) I listed it at centralized discussion starting on July 15th. With that having been done and sufficient time passed, I would like to request a closure on that proposal. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1273 days ago on 3 July 2021). -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1247 days ago on 29 July 2021) open for several weeks and the discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Working Primefac (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1246 days ago on 30 July 2021) open for several weeks and the discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1221 days ago on 23 August 2021) Still some active discussion, but the tenor of the debate is rough and dirty. Multiple borderline personal attacks or legal threats. I think continuing discussion is more likely to cause community harm than to generate further PAG-based points. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Wug·a·po·des 21:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1249 days ago on 26 July 2021) – try to close move reviews after 7 days; this one's a bit older. Please help. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 09:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1236 days ago on 9 August 2021) Simple close needed by an uninvolved editor. Could possibly be relisted if you don't think four editors is enough consensus. ––FormalDude talk 22:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1244 days ago on 31 July 2021) – seems to have fallen off the radar; needs an admin. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1307 days ago on 30 May 2021) There's no clear consensus, but the majority of uninvolved editors prefer not to count the number of countries without specific source.Stix1776 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1245 days ago on 30 July 2021) open for several weeks and the discussion has stalled. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1273 days ago on 2 July 2021) One recent comment but otherwise the discussion has died down. Was advertised on CENT for a month and has an impact on policy that needs clarification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1228 days ago on 17 August 2021) This is an important discussion, but having been open for more than two weeks, it's clearly snowing, and letting the snow accumulate further would just be pointless WP:BURO. A quick formal close is needed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: A discussion that is going SNOW does not need a formal close per WP:RFCEND and it does not need to be listed here, per the instructions in the edit window of this page it can be closed by any participant in the discussion. SpinningSpark 07:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: For decisions as significant as policy changes, yes, a formal close is needed (maybe not de jure, but it'd get quite messy to go without one). And likewise, de jure participants are allowed to make closes, but de facto it's frowned upon, so it'll go a lot smoother if it's someone uninvolved. That's all I'm asking for here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by RandomCanadian (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Spinningspark: For decisions as significant as policy changes, yes, a formal close is needed (maybe not de jure, but it'd get quite messy to go without one). And likewise, de jure participants are allowed to make closes, but de facto it's frowned upon, so it'll go a lot smoother if it's someone uninvolved. That's all I'm asking for here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1343 days ago on 23 April 2021) Requesting closure. Peter Ormond 💬 16:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1265 days ago on 10 July 2021) - Inactive for a while and ready for a close. PackMecEng (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Procedurally speaking, this should have been an RM. Anyways, that doesn't change anything, {{Done}} RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1242 days ago on 3 August 2021) asking for an experienced, uninvolved editor to close this move review please. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 26 August 2021)
- Discussion activity has stalled the last few days, and there has been editors calling for a closure. It's requested that an uninvolved editor to close this RfC. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Given this is American politics and there's no need for this to drag on, I've given you all a speedy closure. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1243 days ago on 1 August 2021) The discussion was auto-archived after a week and a half of comments from various editors. It would be helpful if an uninvolved closer can draw a firm conclusion to the discussion. Deryck C. 22:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a community consensus to tban, from that discussion. So probably doesn't need a closure. - jc37 00:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by PEIsquirrel. SpinningSpark 16:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 2422 days ago on 11 May 2018) This has been discussed informally since 2019, with no apparent opposition to the move. The move request has been open 8 days with no comments whatsoever, so should I
- Assume that it can proceed, based on the previous consensus
- Assume that it can't proceed, based on the lack of new discussion
- Wait longer - and if so, how long?
If proceeding, this will need a page mover to swap with the existing (now stuck) redirection in the reverse direction. Martin Kealey (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1254 days ago on 22 July 2021) Requesting an uninvolved closure, thanks. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 17:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1274 days ago on 1 July 2021) – Could an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close this discussion. Infinity Knight (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1233 days ago on 12 August 2021) Follow-up on the lengthy 6th RM-discussuion for this article, would be good to have a close. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1267 days ago on 9 July 2021) The RfC was archived for quite some time (last reply on 27 August), so I list it as a closure request here so that actually no one forgets to close it. Greatly appreciated. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} WP:RSP has been updated, as well. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1263 days ago on 13 July 2021) It's been more than 30 days since the discussion was opened and there have been no new !votes in five days. Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1269 days ago on 7 July 2021) - Well due for close. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1231 days ago on 14 August 2021) I think this has reached consensus, but as there was some strong opposition and I am heavily involved it would be unwise to close it myself. SpinningSpark 18:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1258 days ago on 18 July 2021) Ready to be closed (by an experienced user, preferably). ––FormalDude talk 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1249 days ago on 27 July 2021) Nardog (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1229 days ago on 15 August 2021) There are three inter-related discussions on the page: Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan (1996–2001)#Separate_1996-2001_and_present-day_Taliban_rule_into_different_articles, Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan (1996–2001)#Proposal_to_merge, and Talk:Islamic_Emirate_of_Afghanistan (1996–2001)#Requested_move_20_August_2021. The formal RM has only been open 4.5 days, but with the previous discussions and the vast participation, it is ripe for an uninvolved editor to close down some of these discussions, probably with a single shared close. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are actually two formal discussions ongoing, one for merging and another for moving. The proposal to merge is going nowhere, has nothing resembling a consensus and in any event goes against several policies and guidelines, so I ask that someone close it as quickly as possible. It's also preventing the move discussion from being properly concluded as well. Avilich (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I second Avilich's analysis of the merge discussion, which appears to be even confused as to what merge is being discussed. It has no prospect of reaching any consensus and should be "put out of its misery" ASAP. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: there's almost certainly some IP hopping being done on the move discussion as well. This should never have been put through a discussion, the article was already about 1996–2001 and consensus was needed to change that, not to rename the article. Avilich (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I second Avilich's analysis of the merge discussion, which appears to be even confused as to what merge is being discussed. It has no prospect of reaching any consensus and should be "put out of its misery" ASAP. Pincrete (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Partly done The second discussion linked - Proposal to merge - has been closed by Avilich (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)- Update: the move discussion, Talk:Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)#Requested move 20 August 2021, still needs closure. It was opened August 20th, well over 7 days ago, and the discussion is increasingly unproductive. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Thanks to all editors involved! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 00:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1217 days ago on 27 August 2021) Could an uninvolved administrator assess, summarize, and formally close this (complicated) discussion. Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1292 days ago on 14 June 2021) Requesting long overdue closure, please. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, though I expect no happiness (ping GoodDay) - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1244 days ago on 1 August 2021) Started well over a month ago, there has been a ton of discussion, but 25 days since the last comment (not counting an edit to my original comment). I think it's time for an uninvolved editor to access the consensus. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ping JDDJS - David Gerard (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1230 days ago on 14 August 2021)
- The template has expired. Would appreciate a closure & decision on this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ping GoodDay - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 27 August 2021)
- After a flurry of initial activity, this has stalled out in the past week or so (with no new comment since the 2nd), so an uninvolved editor is invited to take a look and close this discussion, which appears to have run its natural course. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ping RandomCanadian - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1216 days ago on 28 August 2021)
- The discussion has slowed down so I was hoping an uninvolved editor could close it. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ping Btspurplegalaxy - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1240 days ago on 4 August 2021) This high-profile discussion will reach the 30-day mark tomorrow and requires an experienced, uninvolved closer. It's been listed at WP:CENT for a while, and has therefore attracted a great number of editors. Consensus is certainly unclear. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like Valereee, RoySmith, and Ymblanter are in the process of Doing... this. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we are working on the closing statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by the above panel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we are working on the closing statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1209 days ago on 4 September 2021)
- This RFC is a unanimous WP:SNOWBALL. It's been over a week since the last edit, if there's someone who agrees it's a SNOWBALL then a close would be most helpful, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1205 days ago on 9 September 2021)
- I think that this may qualify for a WP:SNOW close, given that it's been pretty unanimous and gotten a good deal of attention from editors. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1205 days ago on 9 September 2021)
- I think that this may qualify for a WP:SNOW close, given that it's pretty unanimous and gotten a good deal of attention from editors. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 15 July 2021) This is the second RFC started by the same editor; the previous one is higher on the page. Please specifically and directly assess consensus about whether people born with male chromosomes but female genitalia should be described in the article exclusively as "males" vs. with some clarifying term, such as "genetic males", as this has been a source of editing disputes for months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1241 days ago on 3 August 2021) Requesting an administrator close this discussion please. Thanks! ––FormalDude talk 08:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1252 days ago on 23 July 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Nehme1499 10:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1223 days ago on 21 August 2021) Could an experienced editor please assess consensus at this expired #metoo-related RfC? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{Close}} Done @Sdkb. ––FormalDude talk 00:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1201 days ago on 13 September 2021) I have requested the Olympics’ national flag bearers (see document) documents to change the title to ‘Parade of Nations’. Currently there are no opinions to reject, and 7 days have past since the initial request. I request to close the current request and move the documents as stated. —Sjkim04 (T ・ C) 09:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. All proposed titles were significantly altered at 09:45 on 22 September 2021 (UTC), so the move request has been relisted and should run at least seven more days. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 13:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1227 days ago on 18 August 2021) Requesting closure of this RfC which has gone for more than 30 days. Discussion seems to have dried up.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not done nearly 19 hours hours after User:Mikehawk10 posted "Doing..." Please, will another editor address this request? Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
- Bro it’s not a simple close; I’m drafting something relatively long, which is why it is there. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not done nearly 19 hours hours after User:Mikehawk10 posted "Doing..." Please, will another editor address this request? Basketcase2022 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1241 days ago on 4 August 2021) Please review this discussion --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1215 days ago on 29 August 2021) Consensus is clear—requesting outside closure so it's not reverted czar 13:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1239 days ago on 5 August 2021) – The Grid (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1221 days ago on 23 August 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. The support votes say that the current Cardi B lead is full of WP:FANCRUFT and reads more like a list of achievements; the oppose votes say that the tonal criticisms in the lead are unwarranted. Thank you. shanghai.talk to me 03:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- This RfC should still be open, while this user has already tried to force it. Why is this user problematic: RogueShanghai, who identifies as a member of the Barbz of Stan Twitter talk%3ARogueShanghai&type=revision&diff=1017054017&oldid=1017053320 here, Cat&type=revision&diff=1036309724&oldid=1036306309 who uses this type of language has a long problematic behavior, has been reported in ANI 4 times for this behavior. And and Admin has noticed the inflamatory and negative edits by him towards articles about Cardi B. For example, Cullen 328 noticed RogueShanghai is a single-purpose account: promoting Nicki Minaj, while doing the opposite to her 'rivals'. It's worth noting that an admin also suggested the user should be banned from editing bios for his inflatamory edits on Cardi B's article. The vague lead section the user wants is his agenda. Cornerstonepicker (talk)
- @Cornerstonepicker: Why should the discussion continue to be open when it's been open for 25 days now? You've been hounding where I appear on Wikipedia, which is harassment. This is exactly the type of hostile and aggressive energy that is the reason why it's hard to work with you collaboratively as an editor. shanghai.talk to me 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- To editor shanghai.: gentle reminders that 1) RfCs generally last 30 days, which is when the RfC box will disappear, 2) looking at the timestamps of the most recent edits, it appears that this RfC is still active and so should not be closed yet, and 3) please check your sig because the fairly dark red letters on black background might not meet WP accessibility standards (a bit hard to read, so you might want to make the red a lighter, brighter hue?). Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Actually; the RfC didn't receive any replies or attention for
three weeks
; it was only today when I put up the closing request that a flock of editors suddenly introduced activity to the RfC. Also, per your request I changed my signature to reflect accessibility standards more (changed the red to white.) Hopefully that's okay? Thanks! shanghai.talk to me 11:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)- Well, I checked your colors here and there was only one fail and four passes, so your sig was probably borderline okay. However, white on black passes all tests. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Paine Ellsworth: Actually; the RfC didn't receive any replies or attention for
- To editor shanghai.: gentle reminders that 1) RfCs generally last 30 days, which is when the RfC box will disappear, 2) looking at the timestamps of the most recent edits, it appears that this RfC is still active and so should not be closed yet, and 3) please check your sig because the fairly dark red letters on black background might not meet WP accessibility standards (a bit hard to read, so you might want to make the red a lighter, brighter hue?). Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Cornerstonepicker: Why should the discussion continue to be open when it's been open for 25 days now? You've been hounding where I appear on Wikipedia, which is harassment. This is exactly the type of hostile and aggressive energy that is the reason why it's hard to work with you collaboratively as an editor. shanghai.talk to me 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1188 days ago on 25 September 2021) This move request was initiated by a User who is now T-banned (perma, diff ) from this and related discussions involving The Holocaust. Hitherto, the RM has universal opposition, and there seems to be no point to continue it; even a 7-day expiry seems a waste of editor time. Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. User has responded (here) and they are perhaps not t-banned from that RM at this moment. Not sure how long that will last, but this CR is perhaps not worth further action at this time. Mathglot (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – withdrawn by nom. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1224 days ago on 20 August 2021) Request closure & a decision, now that the RFC template has expired. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1252 days ago on 23 July 2021) Requesting a panel of 3-4 uninvolved editors to evaluate and close this discussion. What began as an RfC (linked in the header), proceeded with discussion at the closing admin's user talk, and generated a close challenge at WP:AN. Chetsford, the closing admin, recently unclosed and recommended a panel close. I agree. I have linked all the pertinent discussions for context on the need for solid closure, not to suggest that the new closers should evaluate or consider arguments presented outside of the original RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this is common practice, so I don't know if there's any established way to build a panel. Perhaps interested, uninvolved editors could indicate so below, and we wait until there's 3? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'll throw my name in the hat. Colin M (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers and Colin M: I'd be interested to join. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Still hoping for a third. To be clear: I am involved in the dispute and am not an experienced closer. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers and Colin M: I'd be interested to join. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'll throw my name in the hat. Colin M (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If you all still need a third, please let me know. But if someone else would like to, please let them - I've had my share of practice closing discussions : ) - jc37 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Jc37: We could definitely take a third—thank you so much! So far, we're going to write our observations down in an already-created page before moving onto drafting a more formal closing summary. See the discussion on Colin M's talk page to catch up on where we are currently at and what the next steps are. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Enough time's been wasted on this. I've closed with what is the only obvious outcome, and a big trout to everybody for having such a mess about a subject which is a textbook example of the Law of triviality. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: leaving aside my view on your close, I think there's reason enough for you to self-revert based on the in-process panel-close being coordinated above and elsewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: The close challenge ended in Chetsford, the original closer, agreeing on a panel close. As you can see above, a panel has been built and is already working on closing the discussion. Please self-revert. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did not look at either the original close, or any discussions related thereto. I now see that me and Chet came to pretty much the same conclusion (that makes a de-facto panel, as far as I'm concerned). Additionally, the last sentence of my original statement now makes even more sense: there's probably a good reason to not endlessly re-open this specific RfC with this specific question if there's a dispute about the guideline which is at the center of it, since it will not solve that dispute (especially if a significant amount of involved participants are just going to argue that the disputed guideline should be followed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I do not agree that your close constitutes a "de facto panel". A panel close has a certain meaning, and that is not it. Chetsford recommended a panel close as a solution that would have credibility with all sides. I do not agree that this is an adequate substitute, and your insistence on disrupting this agreed-upon process that was finally nearing a conclusion is quite frustrating. ― Tartan357 Talk 05:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I did not look at either the original close, or any discussions related thereto. I now see that me and Chet came to pretty much the same conclusion (that makes a de-facto panel, as far as I'm concerned). Additionally, the last sentence of my original statement now makes even more sense: there's probably a good reason to not endlessly re-open this specific RfC with this specific question if there's a dispute about the guideline which is at the center of it, since it will not solve that dispute (especially if a significant amount of involved participants are just going to argue that the disputed guideline should be followed). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I need clarification on your decision. GoodDay (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: I'm going to third the request that you revert your close. I think it's poor form to close a discussion when you know that others are already in the process of doing so. Colin M (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you think my close is wrong for other than procedural reasons, please explain. If not, then it is a waste of time and useless bureaucracy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly the opposite is true: if editors close discussions despite knowing others are working on a close, the amount of useless bureaucracy increases. Yes, I have non-procedural objections to your close. In the interest of not wasting time, I'm reserving them to see if you will self-revert to respect the work of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Is the procedural reason not enough? If you're going to perform an action out-of-process, the onus is on you to have a good reason for doing so. As far as I can tell, your reason in this case is that you've decided that your opinion should override the multiple editors who agreed to a panel close (not just the ones who agreed to write the close, but also the original closer, Chetsford, and the editors involved in the original discussion such as Firefangledfeathers). That seems like a poor justification to me. Colin M (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- As should be abundantly clear, I did not look at any peripheral discussion (not even the comments here, beyond the OPs), and once I read the actual RfC discussion considered the outcome obvious enough that it did not justify the nominator's request for a panel. If you think there are reasons that this RfC should have closed as "option B" ( any other outcome is basically identical to my actual closure), then you are invited to explain yourself on that. Otherwise I refuse to revert solely on procedural grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: The fact that you have not looked through the peripheral discussion is a problem. If you had, you'd know that your close fails to address the ambiguity that generated the challenge in the first place. I have tried to explain to you that your close is problematic because it fails to address what the status quo was. If you refuse to let the agreed-upon panel do their work despite multiple editors asking you to self-revert, then there will be a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and you will have massively increased the amount of bureaucracy on this issue which was finally nearing an end. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- As should be abundantly clear, I did not look at any peripheral discussion (not even the comments here, beyond the OPs), and once I read the actual RfC discussion considered the outcome obvious enough that it did not justify the nominator's request for a panel. If you think there are reasons that this RfC should have closed as "option B" ( any other outcome is basically identical to my actual closure), then you are invited to explain yourself on that. Otherwise I refuse to revert solely on procedural grounds. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- If you think my close is wrong for other than procedural reasons, please explain. If not, then it is a waste of time and useless bureaucracy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Tartan357: There is very little discussion in the RfC itself about what the status quo was, so any pronouncement on that by me would be an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE. Nevertheless, since you're insistent, taking a quick look again, since this was not a big part of my original or shortened closes
- The RFC question states, without controversy, that the status quo is "capitalised" (i.e. "A) Keep the titles capitalized in the infoboxes"). I do not see any objection to the RfC question on this ground in the discussion or the survey sections.
- The very first comment (by you, of all people), as I understand it, says that JOBTITLE is applied inconsistently, and that while articles bodies and short descriptions follow it, infoboxes do not appear to (since they're the exception). So this also seems to be an implicit acknowledgement that the current status quo is "capitalised" (this is not a common theme, but there's also at least one other comment for option B which mentions that "there should be no infobox exception to MOS:JOBTITLES"; clearly implying that indeed infoboxes are in practice capitalised)
- There are some others arguing that option A is the de facto status quo in many/most/all articles on the subject.
- All of the above seem to indicate that of the few participants in the discussion who expressed themselves on the matter (which was not part of the RfC question), they seem to agree that the capitalised version (option A) is the de facto status quo. That is a detail which is not relevant to my close (this is where I see I differ with Chet, although this does not seem to affect the ultimate conclusion), however, and not only because it was not a major aspect of the discussion: the last thing I want to do is figure out which option is the "status quo"; only for there to be found exceptions to this status quo, which will lead to further disruption, ..., you get the picture.
- Pragmatically, IMHO, if there is any ambiguity, whatever the de faccto status quo ante is in a given article should be respected, since that is the option which is in line with WP:BRD and other editing policies, and which is otherwise likely to lead to the least edit warring, and since there is (per my close) no consensus for a change. Again, this does not materially affect either my close or its practical implementation, since it is, essentially my interpretation (which I hope is correct) of the relevant editing and behavioural guidelines most constructive to a collaborative editing atmosphere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's see, that's been two attempts to close the RFC-in-question & each time, the closure has been challenged. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1232 days ago on 12 August 2021) The RFC template has now expired. Would appreciate a review & decision on said-RFC :) GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1218 days ago on 27 August 2021) Request closure & a decision, now that the RFC template has expired.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1192 days ago on 22 September 2021) The issues have been relisted on 09:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC) as I altered the titles, and 7 days have past. There are no negative opinions, so I request to close the request and move the documents as stated. —Sjkim04 (T ・ C) 08:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} – closed as no consensus – ping editor Sjkim04. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1236 days ago on 9 August 2021) – Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1295 days ago on 10 June 2021) FDW777 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @FDW777 and GoodDay: {{done}} Special:Diff/1047969700 --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1212 days ago on 2 September 2021) This was a four-option RfC with decent attendance and no "reasonably clear consensus". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: {{done}} Special:Diff/1047970654 --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1211 days ago on 2 September 2021) Now that the RFC template has expired. May we have a closure & ruling? GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 28 September 2021) Current !votes are 22 keep, 4 delete. It's an essay that describes our attitude towards purveyors of pseudoscience. Delete votes have argued it is offensive towards the mentally ill. Keep votes have pointed out the historical basis of the essay and its connection to the quote from Jimmy Wales, as well as the utility of the essay. I think this is quite close to WP:SNOWBALL and deserves early closure so we can move on and discuss if a rename is appropriate instead.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1281 days ago on 24 June 2021) An editor opened an RFC to determine how we refer to the DRASTIC group and subsequently closed the RFC as no consensus leaving an obvious WP:NPOV problem unresolved. This discussion would benefit from a proper closure by an uninvolved editor or admin. 217.35.76.147 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- The RfC was already ended when the original poster withdrew it. This does not require further closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to decline a closure of withdrawn RfC when the NPOV issue remains unresolved? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Any NPOV issues can be resolved via discussion or other forms of dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Is there any reason to decline a closure of withdrawn RfC when the NPOV issue remains unresolved? 217.35.76.147 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Not done}}, per the above. OP is seeking out dispute resolution using WP:NPOVN. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1195 days ago on 18 September 2021) Opened on September 18 and has been well over two weeks. If an uninvolved editor could evaluate the consensus and close the discussion that would be greatly appreciated. Regards. JOEBRO64 21:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. To editor JOEBRO64: closed by No such user at 11:12 on 5 October 2021 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 15:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1188 days ago on 25 September 2021) – Please close/comment at following thread Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ZScarpia. Last admin comment was at 02/10. --Shrike (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}}. Closed by El C in this 12 October edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1266 days ago on 10 July 2021) Requesting closure for a BLP RfC — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Why did this take so long? The last comment was basically two months ago... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @RandomCanadian, I think all of us forgot about it after a long discussion. — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 14 July 2021) I believe it's time to close. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 26 August 2021) Could this be closed or should be restarted? — DaxServer (talk to me) 16:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1217 days ago on 28 August 2021) Requesting closure by an experienced editor or administrator now that the RFC template has expired. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}, RfC closed. ~riley (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1216 days ago on 29 August 2021) No discussion for nearly two weeks. ––FormalDude talk 03:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1213 days ago on 1 September 2021)
- There are still 6 sections in need of closing. — xaosflux Talk 11:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done four, two remain. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} - thank you to the closers. — xaosflux Talk 16:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1211 days ago on 3 September 2021) — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}, as a NAC; hope you don't mind. BilledMammal (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- To editor BilledMammal: please be sure to add the argument
|done=yesto the {{Initiated}} template when you mark an entry with one of the finishing templates such as {{Done}}. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- To editor BilledMammal: please be sure to add the argument
(Initiated 1206 days ago on 7 September 2021) Five votes have been registered, four 'yes' and one 'no'. Please assess the weight of the various arguments and settle the conflict. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- 30 day extra time extended on 01:26, 5 October 2021. Not yet, a extended 30 day time had recently been demanded because two users appear to have always been supportive of the rfc demander on previous discussion, plus one user has never added any significant historical content in music related articles. We do wait for extra opinion from experts working on A and GA music related articles. Woovee (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Obvious gaming of the system. I am already an expert with four FA articles under my belt, three of which I started. After a month, just about everybody who cares has commented. There are no rules in RfC telling us to extend the discussion because "two users appear to have always been supportive" of some viewpoint. If that were true, no RfC would ever end. When a majority of people hold the same viewpoint we call it consensus and we close the discussion, implementing the decision. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The four articles you promoted GA were NOT music related articles. And your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow,[4], you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,(band)&server=enwiki&max= reverting, asking sources. I have never seen you adding anything consistant historically at those articles, sorry, even at the Louis Armstrong article Armstrong&server=enwiki&max=. We should wait for more input from longtime contributors who work on A ansd GA music articles. Woovee (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has never been a requirement for topic expertise to participate in RfCs. You are moving the goalposts; another attempt to game the system in your favor. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- What matters is the quality of the consensus and the arguements written. You are just non-specialist giving a hasty judgement about a band/genre that you have no knowledge on. Regarding your non-expertise on the subject, that's a problem; one should take with circumption the opinion of someone who wrote about a pin-up poster ... their opinion on a musical genre on which they have never posted anything @ wiki . One doesn't ask a photographer to talk about musicology, sorry. Woovee (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- There has never been a requirement for topic expertise to participate in RfCs. You are moving the goalposts; another attempt to game the system in your favor. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- The four articles you promoted GA were NOT music related articles. And your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow,[4], you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,(band)&server=enwiki&max= reverting, asking sources. I have never seen you adding anything consistant historically at those articles, sorry, even at the Louis Armstrong article Armstrong&server=enwiki&max=. We should wait for more input from longtime contributors who work on A ansd GA music articles. Woovee (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- Obvious gaming of the system. I am already an expert with four FA articles under my belt, three of which I started. After a month, just about everybody who cares has commented. There are no rules in RfC telling us to extend the discussion because "two users appear to have always been supportive" of some viewpoint. If that were true, no RfC would ever end. When a majority of people hold the same viewpoint we call it consensus and we close the discussion, implementing the decision. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- 30 day extra time extended on 01:26, 5 October 2021. Not yet, a extended 30 day time had recently been demanded because two users appear to have always been supportive of the rfc demander on previous discussion, plus one user has never added any significant historical content in music related articles. We do wait for extra opinion from experts working on A and GA music related articles. Woovee (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} And if I may, Woovee, go read WP:BLUDGEON and try not to do that in the future? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1203 days ago on 11 September 2021) Discussion has died down, with the last !vote on 28 September, 12 days ago. IMO it is ready for closure. I don't think I should close it myself because I have expressed an opinion on this subject in previous discussions. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC) Update: two additional !votes were added on 11 October. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1190 days ago on 24 September 2021) It dropped off WP:OAFD probably because it was reopened after a DRV, but is overdue for a closure now. Sandstein 19:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1547 days ago on 1 October 2020) Discussion now seems stale on a merge proposal between Terrestrial locomotion and Terrestrial animal. Could any uninvolved editor please consider the consensus. Klbrain (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. To notify Klbrain. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 12:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1213 days ago on 31 August 2021) One editor has objected to there being a "clear consensus", so request an uninvolved closure to determine if there is indeed such a consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1204 days ago on 10 September 2021) Could an experienced editor please review Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 4#MIGY, which has been relisted thrice? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Notify Jax 0677. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1195 days ago on 18 September 2021) Seven days have passed with decent activity. See no reason to drag out discussion on contentious topic. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. To editor Rotideypoc41352: this has been closed. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1187 days ago on 27 September 2021) Discussion has stabilised and reached going-in-circles stage, with calls for a close - David Gerard (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Disagree People in previous discussions have not yet been notified (OP pinged only those who were in the very most recent discussion). 4 new comments in the past 5 days, 3 of those in the past 24 hours. Allow it to run its course. 30 days is appropriate/standard and should be followed. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Thirty days is not the standard, it is merely when the bot automatically removes it from the RfC listings. An RfC can be re-added to the listings (by adding a new
{{RFC}}template), or it can continue to remain open without being listed. But 30 days was never intended as a suggested run time. ––FormalDude talk 03:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)- @FormalDude: Directly from the notice at the top of this page
"The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days"
. Buffs (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)- See WP:RFC#Duration, particularly the first two paragraphs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- @FormalDude: Directly from the notice at the top of this page
- @Buffs: Thirty days is not the standard, it is merely when the bot automatically removes it from the RfC listings. An RfC can be re-added to the listings (by adding a new
{{Not done}}. There is obvious and open disagreement above. "Default length" in this case just means the length of time the RfC will last until the bot removes the RfC template so as not to clog the queue. It does not mean that an RfC must last that long anymore than it means that an RfC must be closed when it reaches 30 days. An RfC might last 30 days, 300 days or 3 days. And most don't even require formal closure. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1202 days ago on 12 September 2021) Requesting an uninvolved closer due to the extreme contentiousness of the subject material. No new comments in the last 5 days. ― Tartan357 Talk 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1175 days ago on 9 October 2021)
- Hello, is anyone not on arbcom, who did not participate in the election commissioner rfc, available to close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Electoral Commission? I participated, so am leaving distance. While it is officially a discussion, it is primarily a number counting exercise. The most recent community guidance on closing this RfC can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Commissioner_reservist_selections. Thank you — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JJMC89 * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1168 days ago on 16 October 2021) Article is high profile due to being listed on the main page as ITN, and the move request appears to be a candidate for a snow close. BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- While not truly a candidate for "snow close", this one might fall under the Avalanche clause. I wouldn't close it yet because it's barely a day old at this point, so it's important to be cautious and wait two or three days to see what might develop as editors discover the request and maybe want to chime in. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} a clear SNOW - not moved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1219 days ago on 26 August 2021) This has been open for over a month; and while there are occasional new contributions; the discussion has probably covered all reasonable aspects of the topic and further prolonging it will only make it a longer wall of text for whoever has to close it at some point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to read through it and make the close, though I'd like to give admins another week to decide if they want to venture a close before I would do so. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
- Seeing none, I'm Doing... this. It is going to take a while to write. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Seeing none, I'm
(Initiated 1196 days ago on 17 September 2021)
An uninvolved close will be helpful for this discussion which will be a pointer for future (expected) edit requests. I'll stand there, with my rationale, to avoid "poisoning the well" Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... BilledMammal (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you BilledMammal, I appreciate your diligence in assessing the discussion, and the candid summary of what you found.--John Cline (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1532 days ago on 17 October 2020) Could an uninvolved edit please consider the consensus for or against a merge of Criticism of Spotify to Spotify, discussed at Talk:Spotify#Proposed merge of Criticism of Spotify into Spotify#Criticism. Klbrain (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1214 days ago on 31 August 2021) Discussion appears to have stalled on this topic since the day it was first proposed, with no input from any other editor. I would have closed it myself, but I got involved as I have already voiced my opinion. It appears no other editor has voiced support for the proposal. Haleth (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1176 days ago on 7 October 2021) I would like an uninvolved editor to help reach a consensus. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} –
Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
