Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 35
 | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 39 |
(Initiated 978 days ago on 26 March 2022) Very little support for merge. Please close as it went on for months.71.183.166.47 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 820 days ago on 1 September 2022) – There haven't been any new participants in several weeks, so closure is probably warranted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- A sockpuppetry disaster was discovered. Not going to see this closed in a long while. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- One editor made the mistake of thinking that RMs are determined by quantity of !votes rather than quality of arguments. Agree with EW; this MRV is ready for closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there <involved> 14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Now {{done}} by Mellohi!. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 769 days ago on 22 October 2022) Looking for an admin to close this topic ban proposal; 3 days have passed with unanimous support. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Vanamonde93. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 809 days ago on 12 September 2022) The idea was first proposed in late August at § Super crazy idea: demote to info page. The proposer then initiated an RFC which expired. ~~ lol1VNIO👻 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 844 days ago on 8 August 2022) – Natg 19 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to request that the closer take into careful consideration that this discussion seemed to have prior consensus at: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 58#Recent correction to Simple Lists, but it appears the nominator did not agree with that,
and indulged in a bit of WP:FORUMSHOPping to canvass by campaigning for their view by starting a new discussion , which was nothing but a form a of stonewalling.Huggums537 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC) - Subsequent to this discussion, I am also formally requesting that an experienced admin perform the closure of the above mentioned discussion on the grounds that the discussion is both confusing, and would result in a conflict between two differing sets of guidance without some kind of admin intervention (I believe the POLCON issue to be grounds for admin intervention) or direction to a path forward for a resolution. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- (Please note I am not seeking any retroactive sanctions against the nominator, only that considerations are taken into account for the outcome of the discussion.) Huggums537 (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Opening an RFC about a major change to policy on the same page as the informal local discussion isn't canvassing, forum shopping, or stonewalling. If you want to accuse me of those again take it to my talk page or ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, I want to avoid any drama [at ANI] or harm to other editors. My only goal is a clear perspective of the circumstances and the right outcome for the discussion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Opening an RFC about a major change to policy on the same page as the informal local discussion isn't canvassing, forum shopping, or stonewalling. If you want to accuse me of those again take it to my talk page or ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} RAN1 (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Undone per request. RAN1 (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Striking part of my comment per discussion on my talk page. Huggums537 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 832 days ago on 19 August 2022) Discussion has stalled with no new comments since Oct 10. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 814 days ago on 7 September 2022), RFC expired Springee (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 805 days ago on 16 September 2022) Hi, this RFC has been open a long time. Just looking for an uninvolved editor to close the RFC. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 791 days ago on 29 September 2022) It seems likely that at least one editor will continue this argument indefinitely without a formal close. Please put this one to bed, one way or the other. Thank you in advance. MrOllie (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 790 days ago on 30 September 2022) Requesting closure of this RfC. I think maybe someone tried to close the wrong discussion in error. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Talk:The Buddha#The morning after – informal discussion needs formal closure
(Initiated 27 days ago on 1 November 2024) After multiple requests to the OP to engage in discussion in the section they opened, we are getting exactly nowhere, not because of lack of consensus, not because of lack of agreement, but simply because of wandering in circles and refusal to engage. To me, this is contrary to the prime purpose of a WP:Talk page, namely, to improve the article. A formal closure of this informal discussion by any uninvolved editor will underline this fundamental point about Talk pages and save multiple editors further pointless effort. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 809 days ago on 12 September 2022), the RFC tag has expired. Would appreciate closure :) GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Talk:The_Wire_(India)#Merger_proposal - malformed move proposal; can't close since I participated
(Initiated 760 days ago on 30 October 2022) See my last comment where I explain why I think the move proposal is malformed. Editors seem to want to use this move request as a way to talk about Tek Fog in The Wire (India); but it already is, and the content from Tek Fog couldn't be used as-is anyway. I think the proper proposal is an AfD, but I'd rather not submit one while a move request is ongoing. DFlhb (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I retract my view that this was malformed; we could merge the reactions, and resulting investigations and lawsuit mostly as-is. I suggest closing after the discussion has run its course; but I no longer believe there's any hurry here. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} without prejudice to resubmit at a later time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 830 days ago on 21 August 2022) Please review Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{nd}} – the Committee has appointed closers, and they're currently working on it. Nothing more for us to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is not the first time that Jax 0677 has used this board to request that an ArbCom matter be closed. @Jax 0677:, please don't do that again: you should leave ArbCom decisions to the arbs and their clerks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 788 days ago on 3 October 2022) WP:SNOW applies at this point. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 831 days ago on 21 August 2022). Expired a while ago and participation has tapered off. -sche (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This discussion is incredibly messy. Whoever handles it will need to extremely experienced; honestly, some kind of higher functionary (e.g., a bureaucrat or arbitrator) would be ideal, although I recognize there's only a handful of you and you're all rather busy.—Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)- Eh, that was overstated. Still, the underlying issues are more complex than they would appear to be at first glance, and my own impression is that it might be possible for a deft closer to finesse a compromise position that would satisfy both sides, maybe. Someone with solid experience in making complex closes, and not just potentially controversial ones, would be ideal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 827 days ago on 25 August 2022). The RfC was called after an edit dispute that arose over the editions to article lede. Although survey has 8 comments but quite a long discussion was done over it. The dispute is still there and RfC was referred in new discussion where editors viewed that it should have a proper close, so filed for it. USaamo (t@lk) 18:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 827 days ago on 25 August 2022) Clear consensus to merge, just need a formal close and someone to start the merge. Some1 (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 820 days ago on 1 September 2022). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- A formal closure may no longer be necessary, since Ganesha811's revision of the lead section [1] removed the controversial opening sentence and was apparently accepted by editors. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 808 days ago on 13 September 2022) BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} it myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 798 days ago on 23 September 2022) RFC tag expired 'bout a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 758 days ago on 2 November 2022) I'm requesting an impartial closure of the above talk page move request. It has been 7 days. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. Iscargra (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- You want impartial, but you are telling the closer what the outcome should be. Doesn't seem impartial. Further, outcomes are based on the strength of the arguments in alignment with policy, not how many supporters/opposers there are. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes - even leaving aside the rest of the supports, a full 3 of them literally just say "per nom" even though the nom's claims were strongly rebutted later in the discussion. Crossroads -talk- 22:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, then. I could not find very clear guidance on how consensus is determined for move requests, so I assumed that what the majority of users support is what the result is. Iscargra (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Determining_consensus is the guidance you are seeking. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also, RM's get automatically listed on Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Current_discussions, the bottom of which includes elapsed RMs and the closure backlog. Generally, there's no need to list RMs here. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Paine Ellsworth:! This is another reason why we generally don't request RM closes to this board, @Iscargra:. As such, please remove this request. No harm, no foul. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- No problemo. And this should be archived by the bot soon anyway. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Paine Ellsworth:! This is another reason why we generally don't request RM closes to this board, @Iscargra:. As such, please remove this request. No harm, no foul. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 798 days ago on 23 September 2022) A lightly attended RFC. Its' tag expired over a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: {{done}} it myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 780 days ago on 10 October 2022) I know 30 days have not elapsed, but discussion has slowed to zero additions for 8 days, and I believe a consensus result is clear at this point. Would love for someone to effect a closure so I can implement whatever the result may be without any controversy, given this is a high traffic page of high importance to the project. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm happy to close the discussion in 16 days. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, I am not going to stand in the way of someone else closing this early, I just don't think it's necessary. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
This is now ready. There has only been one substantive comment since 18 October and that was two days ago. The RFC tag was removed by the bot today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} it myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 754 days ago on 5 November 2022) People are yelling WP:SNOW over here. Is it worthy of such a closure? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Mellohi!: {{Done}}. Closed as keep. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1011 days ago on 22 February 2022) Could an experienced, uninvolved editor assess the consensus at this discussion? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
{{Close}} as split endorsed, but precisely how needs be discussed further. BusterD (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 820 days ago on 1 September 2022) Would like a formal closure of this RfC if possible. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, please Andre🚐 16:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} nableezy - 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 791 days ago on 30 September 2022) Looks like the discussion is slowing down, and will soon be archived. A solid discussion, with many nuances (whether attribution is needed, what topics it's reliable and unreliable for, whether it's biased, whether it can be used for dueness), so I'd humbly suggest an experienced closer tackle this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFlhb (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 859 days ago on 24 July 2022) – Please review for inclusion on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes#Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SHAC Community
(Initiated 756 days ago on 3 November 2022) No more discussion is happening 4 days after relisting. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. This will be picked up in the normal AFD closure rotation 7 clear days after the relist. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 800 days ago on 21 September 2022) BilledMammal (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is about a WMF-level decision, so I don't know if regular old WP:CR passerby are capable of closing this without a firestorm. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest that inexperienced closers do not attempt to close this one, but apart from that I don't believe that a special process is needed to close this discussion. I note that Barkeep49 volunteered to close the discussion, but there was some objection due to them having offered advice on the structure of the RfC; I disagree with those objections, and if no one else is available to close the discussions I think that Barkeep49 would do an excellent and unbiased job of it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I solicited feedback and the feedback I got was mostly negative so I obviously have not closed. I appreciate your kind words. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I would suggest that inexperienced closers do not attempt to close this one, but apart from that I don't believe that a special process is needed to close this discussion. I note that Barkeep49 volunteered to close the discussion, but there was some objection due to them having offered advice on the structure of the RfC; I disagree with those objections, and if no one else is available to close the discussions I think that Barkeep49 would do an excellent and unbiased job of it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close, but would appreciate co-closers due to the length. @Wugapodes, BD2412, Rosguill, and Primefac: Would any of you be interested in co-closing with me? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think now is a good time for me to commit to this due to off-Wikipedia reasons, sorry! signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I participated, otherwise I would. — Wug·a·po·des 22:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, I've already read the entire discussion and have been planning on closing it for a few days. I'm willing to co-close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Let me just register my on going disagreement with the increase and encroachment of panel closes. The more this happens the more people are going to expect it to happen and we just don't have the editor base to support widespread panel closes. Further we have seen a couple of recentish panel closes, made up of veteran admin and even crats, that have faced scrutiny and even been overturned so it's not like it's giving it some patina of legitimacy. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I only offered because now I'd feel bad closing it when someone else expressed that they were going to close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a point in favor of single person closes, the Fox News RFC was closed by one admin-arb and has stuck, without any grumbling or contesting of the consensus. Andre🚐 23:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with that sentiment, if the reason for a panel close is to add legitimacy, and I think have said so in the past. But main reason I expressed interest in a co-closer here is not because I'm worried about it being overturned, and more because it's long and this particular discussion can be compartmentalised. Also I feel there's a difference between a good and helpful close, and a close that is sufficiently legitimate to not be appealed / survive appeal, and I think peer review serves as a good sanity check to help ensure you achieve the former. Not that I think many discussions need a sanity check, but it's sometimes useful.
- I imagine Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion was created with the same idea in mind. I quite liked the idea behind that venue; it's a shame it didn't quite take off. Personally I found it a useful sanity check e.g. here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- Let me just register my on going disagreement with the increase and encroachment of panel closes. The more this happens the more people are going to expect it to happen and we just don't have the editor base to support widespread panel closes. Further we have seen a couple of recentish panel closes, made up of veteran admin and even crats, that have faced scrutiny and even been overturned so it's not like it's giving it some patina of legitimacy. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- Just to respond to the above ping, I think you can SFR can manage the close well enough (since, as you say, it is rather large); it's not so much a panel close as a tag-team situation. I would offer to help, but I'm drafting an ArbCom case as of yesterday so... "bad timing" from that perspective. Primefac (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
{{done}}. Sorry for the delay in marking this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 793 days ago on 27 September 2022) 30-day period expired a while ago, but comments were still coming in. They seem to have died off about a week ago. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse close recommendation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} nableezy - 07:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 785 days ago on 6 October 2022) The RfC tag has expired and I think that this one may warrant formal closure by an uninvolved editor. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion has been since archived and is awaiting closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, no formal closure needed, the outcome is pretty clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 791 days ago on 30 September 2022) Requesting closure since the result of this RfC might affect many articles. Some1 (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 786 days ago on 5 October 2022) - Plenty of opinions on this question, but it's not clear what direction to go from here. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I've {{Done}} the closure, and I could do nothing more than head three options for the runoff. It was not possible to evaluate the consensus from that discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree about the number of options. There were way too many. Nemov (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 807 days ago on 14 September 2022) Last comment October 11. Small distinctions in positions will need to be reconciled. DigitalMedia11 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 768 days ago on 23 October 2022) - This RfC is not ready for closure, but due to the tight schedule we have decided to pre-identify closers. If you are available on the 24th when the RfC is scheduled to close, and are willing to close the RfC on that day, please comment saying so. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- We are still looking for a closer for this, if there are any available and willing editors? BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I can do it, I haven't participated in these discussions so far. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: Thank you; I will ping you again on the 24th. BilledMammal (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: The discussion has been hatted pending your closure, per the plan for the RfC. An editor has requested a panel close, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus that it is required. Thank you again for volunteering. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Joe Roe. BilledMammal (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: The discussion has been hatted pending your closure, per the plan for the RfC. An editor has requested a panel close, but there doesn't appear to be a consensus that it is required. Thank you again for volunteering. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe: Thank you; I will ping you again on the 24th. BilledMammal (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I can do it, I haven't participated in these discussions so far. – Joe (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 769 days ago on 21 October 2022) Requesting closure. Crossroads -talk- 23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 769 days ago on 22 October 2022) - This RfC has received plenty of feedback and will likely need a veteran closer to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 772 days ago on 19 October 2022) The bot has removed the RfC-template, there's been no discussion there for about a week, and it currently stands at 3 yes !votes (including the proposer) against 6 no !votes, so I think it can be safely closed now... - Tom
| Thomas.W talk 19:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 772 days ago on 19 October 2022) This DRV is almost 3 weeks past the usual closing deadline. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Barkeep49. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 812 days ago on 9 September 2022). The RfC was called following a breakdown in a discussion about peace efforts where a majority of editors were in favour of inclusion Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 9#Peace efforts. Seeing this, some uninvolved editors advised against calling the RfC in a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment talk page. But it was created anyway and now needs a close so that we can cover the new developments. IntrepidContributor (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 753 days ago on 7 November 2022) – Needs uninvolved closure, by someone prepared to read the whole Rfc. There appears to be a consensus for ALT5 (i.e. a wish to change the above WP guideline in a certain way), and if the closer confirms that it is a strong enough consensus, then that guideline will need to be changed. See the above discussion for precise details of ALT5. Storye book (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- For anyone contemplating closing: the initial discussions are extremely lengthy and include two RfC sections. The final discussion and !votes starts at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Runoff!, so this close is not as daunting as it looks. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- I absolutely disagree that the entire 40,000 word RfC needs to be read, and @Storye book it's customary to mark something you've added after someone else has replied by underlining the added portion. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Prepared" means they are capable of doing it. It does not mean that they have to do it (as in an ambulance crew being prepared to resuscitate does not mean that they have to resuscitate every patient). Saying that the closer must do something would be compromising their neutrality (in the same way as it could compromise their neutrality by saying that they have to read only one section, for example). Even if they only skim-read it all, or if they read little bits throughout, they will see that the reason why the Rfc was initiated is not the same as the runoff content. You can only be neutral if you are aware of the process that you are being neutral about. Storye book (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the process, have read every word, but you seem to think I can't be neutral in assessing consensus. I assure you, I am fully capable of assessing consensus even when involved; it's just best practices not to. But best practices doesn't take into account a single editor who is insisting a closer "be someone prepared to read the whole RfC".
- I do not think anyone needs to read (what has now become) 45K words in order to find consensus in an RfC based completely on opinion -- no policy arguments involved -- that currently stands at 15:2:2. No one needs to read the previous tens of thousands of words because there are no policy arguments being made that affect the RfC. It's all people trying to convince one another to change their opinion about the previous RfC. Valereee (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- "Prepared" means they are capable of doing it. It does not mean that they have to do it (as in an ambulance crew being prepared to resuscitate does not mean that they have to resuscitate every patient). Saying that the closer must do something would be compromising their neutrality (in the same way as it could compromise their neutrality by saying that they have to read only one section, for example). Even if they only skim-read it all, or if they read little bits throughout, they will see that the reason why the Rfc was initiated is not the same as the runoff content. You can only be neutral if you are aware of the process that you are being neutral about. Storye book (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
- Update. This Rfc has now been closed, by admin ONUnicorn. Storye book (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Storye book: in which case, don't strike it, and don't insert your post before the replies, both of those make it look like the request was withdrawn before anybody commented, see WP:TALK#REPLIED. Instead, use
|done=yesand simply post this: - {{already done}} by ONUnicorn (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Storye book: in which case, don't strike it, and don't insert your post before the replies, both of those make it look like the request was withdrawn before anybody commented, see WP:TALK#REPLIED. Instead, use
(Initiated 812 days ago on 9 September 2022) Been dead for a couple of weeks, but I would like someone to close it that isn't me. It may be a somewhat tricky one that isn't simply closed as "yes or no", so someone well-versed in such disputes would be helpful when writing the comment. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 797 days ago on 23 September 2022), the RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 797 days ago on 24 September 2022) Needs a close. No active votes since over a month ago and no clear objection given about why that sentence shouldn't be removed from the article. If a separate RFC is needed to determine possible context or replacement, then that would be a possible follow-up step, but this RFC hasn't produced any substantial objections for keeping this sentence. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 781 days ago on 10 October 2022) This was actually removed by bot some time ago, and discussion has mostly died down. Would like an independent closure so that the consensus, if any, is not quickly challenged. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 778 days ago on 12 October 2022) The RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
NOTE - I do have concerns about what appears to be a breach of canvassing, by one of the participants at the RFC. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how they compiled these lists of people to ping, but it seems over half of the editors pinged by 4me689 voted contrary to that editor's position. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- There was apparently an AN/I request about it (it's been archived) and the user asked at the Teahouse about canvassing (also been archived) and was basically told that they were, and given the link to WP:CANVASS. I didn't see anything obvious in their recent history of canvassing, so I'm fine with WP:AGF, and leaving it there for now. - jc37 17:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a tad disappointed with what amounts to a "non decision". Had it been either 'delete' or 'keep'? We'd be done with the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- There was apparently an AN/I request about it (it's been archived) and the user asked at the Teahouse about canvassing (also been archived) and was basically told that they were, and given the link to WP:CANVASS. I didn't see anything obvious in their recent history of canvassing, so I'm fine with WP:AGF, and leaving it there for now. - jc37 17:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 765 days ago on 26 October 2022) – Expired RFC. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1381 days ago on 17 February 2021) Could any uninvolved editor examine the consensus for a merge of conscious breathing into Breathwork, involving a discussion where I have been a participant. The other part of the proposal (related to Rebirthing (breathwork)) seems to have been satisfactorily resolved. Klbrain (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 797 days ago on 23 September 2022), though the RFC tag doesn't expire for another week. I just reverted a premature closure by an editor, who suddenly returned to Wikipedia (I hope it's not a sock) after a seven year absence. I should note, the layout of the article (concerning lists of countries) has changed since the opening of this RFC & therefore the RFC's question might now be rendered moot. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay I don't see any point in closing this. The consensus is clear. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed & the editor (CandyStalnak) who made the RFC necessary, turned out to be a sock of a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed & the editor (CandyStalnak) who made the RFC necessary, turned out to be a sock of a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 759 days ago on 31 October 2022) An uninvolved closer would be helpful. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- can someone (like @Jc37:) come close this Robbie Coltrane inclusion vote sooner rather than later, cuz it's been a debate and the 2022 talk page since his death 2 months ago and would rather close it now and get a full consensus rendered now. (just note the international coverage does no equal international mobility). 4me689 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} (non-admin closure) - Ryk72 talk 03:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 760 days ago on 30 October 2022) The tag expired a few days ago & comments have grind to a halt. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC) {{Done}}Gusfriend (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 744 days ago on 15 November 2022) Please review this discussion. The dispute seemed pretty tense and long. I would like to see what the closer would have to say about this. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 763 days ago on 27 October 2022) Perhaps forgotten, or perhaps no one feels comfortable closing a multi-redirect RFD. Consensus is clear. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 760 days ago on 31 October 2022) This DRV has ran for a few more days beyond the standard duration. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:Stifle. --RL0919 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 747 days ago on 13 November 2022) Needs uninvolved closure. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:3D1F:7DFD:C2E2:FBAA (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Recommend waiting until the RFC tag expires. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Done}} Gusfriend (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 861 days ago on 22 July 2022) There have been no new comments on this in over a month and seems to be a reasonable consensus, would appreciate an uninvolved editor closing the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 812 days ago on 8 September 2022) – this move request was previously closed, sent to the Move Review Board, and has been reopened to seek an uninvolved editor's closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Sceptre. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 859 days ago on 24 July 2022) – Please review for inclusion on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes#Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 802 days ago on 19 September 2022) This merge proposal is overdue for closure. I can't do it myself as I am involved. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 752 days ago on 8 November 2022) Consensus seems to be clear enough for closure. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sjakkalle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1012 days ago on 21 February 2022) Expired RfC left unclosed for months now. --Firestar464 (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- To editor Firestar464: shouldn't this have a different header than the one before it? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Self-trout Firestar464 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Transferred from Other section to RfC section. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 10:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 751 days ago on 9 November 2022) - The RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 758 days ago on 2 November 2022) Requesting closure, thanks. Crossroads -talk- 22:34, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. May affect active requests for comment on RSN about The Telegraph, The Times and The Economist. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 763 days ago on 27 October 2022) RfC has expired. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 755 days ago on 4 November 2022) Experienced closer needed here please. Cheers - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:F093:7714:9E82:2536 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}} RfC extended by Nemov. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 815 days ago on 5 September 2022) It's been more than 30 days since this new speedy deletion criterion was proposed. Requesting a formal close as this would affect a large number of redirects, present and future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- I know there are a lot of requests on this page, but can someone please close this already ... InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 767 days ago on 23 October 2022) – ready for closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 20:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 728 days ago on 2 December 2022) Changes have been contentious and an uninvolved editor is requested to close this without drama. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 731 days ago on 28 November 2022) The issue has been resolved with the creation of a new article on top of the redirect, but User:Jclemens/Donald X. Vaccarino will need to be history merged before the RfD is closed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} – closed by Rosguill; histmerged by Izno. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 761 days ago on 30 October 2022) Needs uninvolved closure. George Ho (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 751 days ago on 9 November 2022) RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 736 days ago on 24 November 2022) Close needed on runoff. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 774 days ago on 17 October 2022) Discussion was relisted a total of three times, but there was no participation after the 3rd relist, and the discussion went stale afterwards. CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC) {{Done}} JeffUK (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 722 days ago on 7 December 2022) – Uninvolved closure needed. Thanks! --StTropez83 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 754 days ago on 5 November 2022) Is there enough consensus to crown (pun intended) "koruna" and "heller" as the standard on-wiki spelling for the Czech currency? NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 822 days ago on 30 August 2022) - Is there a consensus for the creation of these articles? BilledMammal (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- User:BilledMammal there’s no consensus, but also general consensus that OP doesn’t need prior consensus to boldly create articles manually if they’re otherwise uncontested, and the rate they’re working falls outside most measures of mass-creation. It does seem that they have slowed down and been working on other things recently too. {{Done}} JeffUK (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 730 days ago on 30 November 2022) Vigorous discussion (86 comments, 24 people), no comments for 4 days. Closure would be good so editors have a (possible) consensus to look at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I've closed this JeffUK (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC) {{Done}}
(Initiated 779 days ago on 12 October 2022) RfC expired Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 07:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, with courtesy ping to Iamreallygoodatcheckers. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 712 days ago on 17 December 2022) This is about the ongoing and hotly contested AfD debate, in regards to a newly created article on recent suspension of journalist Twitter accounts. Would a panel close at some point in the coming weeks be possible?
The current AfD discussion is far from over, and should be allowed to run its course, but in my opinion (and at the request of several other editors), it might be nice for this to eventually be closed by a small panel of admins/editors, to help avoid any controversy around the final decision.
Your assistance and consideration of this matter is very much appreciated!
Thanks so much. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty early to be asking for a closure, considering it's still got another three days to run. That being said, if someone wants to drop me a ping when it closes, I don't mind helping out. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear: we are definitely *not* asking for any immediate close. This is an advance request for an eventual panel closure by several editors or admins (perhaps sometime in the coming weeks), due to the contentious nature of this AfD debate. I think it's important to allow the discussion to run it's course, but wanted to make this request for a panel close well before anyone decided to process the AfD. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I had it on my radar to check in after 7 days myself but am happy to hear Lee is willing to do it. I am strongly against any kind of panel close for this AfD as I see little of the benefits of a panel close benefitting this situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Lee and Barkeep49. This is an integrity need for us and I thank 98.155.8.5 for raising it here. Seeing as prior to the AfD the requested move was closed inappropriately by an involved individual and given the extremely high media visibility, the extreme need for a panel of experienced closers is worth an early mention on this board. There's a ton of good faith invested in this process by participants; IMHO it's essential for WP to demonstrate to the Twitter-following world the difference between the two communities. If we let somebody hijack the close (like somebody did the RM), everyone will notice it. BusterD (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- That was on my mind as well; about the somewhat inexperienced (and highly involved/opinionated editor) who very quickly closed previous discussion about article title without due process. It would be a shame to see something similar happen again, and I would like to encourage folks here to consider a panel close to ensure a deliberate and neutral decision is made, especially given all the political preferences that have been flying around, as well as references having been made to the previous process around the Twitter Files article.
- @Barkeep49: I am curious to ask, what is it specifically about a panel close do you think would not be helpful? Anything to do with Twitter and Elon Musk seems contentious lately, so careful consideration and involvement of several folks in the final close would be very much appreciated, and would also be helpful in avoiding accusations of bias or whatever in the final outcome! Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- We have lots of contentious closes. This idea that because something is contentious it needs a panel close is not endorsed in Wikipedia policies or guidelines and indeed we have a long history of single administrators closing contentious AfDs. For instance a single administrator closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand this rationale, thanks for offering clarification. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- We have lots of contentious closes. This idea that because something is contentious it needs a panel close is not endorsed in Wikipedia policies or guidelines and indeed we have a long history of single administrators closing contentious AfDs. For instance a single administrator closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I had it on my radar to check in after 7 days myself but am happy to hear Lee is willing to do it. I am strongly against any kind of panel close for this AfD as I see little of the benefits of a panel close benefitting this situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear: we are definitely *not* asking for any immediate close. This is an advance request for an eventual panel closure by several editors or admins (perhaps sometime in the coming weeks), due to the contentious nature of this AfD debate. I think it's important to allow the discussion to run it's course, but wanted to make this request for a panel close well before anyone decided to process the AfD. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
{{Done}} Sorry that I'm not a panel, but I didn't think to look here until after. Merry Christmas to every admin who now doesn't need to read that lengthy discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @RL0919: That was fast! Thanks and happy holidays. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 743 days ago on 16 November 2022) – Succinct discussion, uninvolved closure needed to determine consensus (or lack thereof). PaulT2022 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there, User:PaulT2022 I reviewed the discussion and don't think it's really needing 'closing' as such. There clearly wasn't consensus for restoring the removed content, but on the other hand there was only really two of you involved in the discussion. If you feel strongly that the content should be included I suggest you try proposing a re-wording of that content that may be able to satisfy the other editor, which might help move toward consensus, and if that doesn't work, the next step would be an RFC to gather more input into the conversation. (Having a clearly written proposal of what you think should be added will also help with this.)
- Leaving this open for now in case a more experienced closer has a different view. JeffUK (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- I requested a closure in a hope that an uninvolved editor could evaluate strength of the arguments voiced by the sides in the discussion and degree to which they're rooted in policy (WP:NHC). PaulT2022 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}: User:PaulT2022 There is clearly no consensus and, as above, there are ways to try and determine consensus that have not yet been tried, as such I'm closing this as 'not done' because this request is premature. The primary policy here is Wikipedia:Consensus. The other user (User:My very best wishes) detailed the parts of the content that are not happy with, and some that they would accept with minor changes. The next step is to understand their concerns and propose a change that you believe may be acceptable to both of you. JeffUK (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support the comments from JeffUK above suggesting that a RFC with a clearly written proposal would be an excellent next step. Gusfriend (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}: User:PaulT2022 There is clearly no consensus and, as above, there are ways to try and determine consensus that have not yet been tried, as such I'm closing this as 'not done' because this request is premature. The primary policy here is Wikipedia:Consensus. The other user (User:My very best wishes) detailed the parts of the content that are not happy with, and some that they would accept with minor changes. The next step is to understand their concerns and propose a change that you believe may be acceptable to both of you. JeffUK (talk) 10:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I requested a closure in a hope that an uninvolved editor could evaluate strength of the arguments voiced by the sides in the discussion and degree to which they're rooted in policy (WP:NHC). PaulT2022 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 747 days ago on 13 November 2022) RfC expired. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to BilledMammal. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 722 days ago on 8 December 2022) An editor turned a discussion section into an RfC without allowing a discussion to actually take place. Only one editor has participated in the RfC, while four have stated it is a poor RfC. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 713 days ago on 16 December 2022) AfD rapidly resolved by article creator suggesting to merge Brightside Roadside into the article of its parent company. Since I am the originator of the AfD, it appears, on my reading of the policy, I cannot close this one, since it is not a keep.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Vanamonde on 2022-12-22. Gusfriend (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 736 days ago on 23 November 2022) This RfC just expired (rfcid=5C38C18). A tricky conversation here, based on policy questions around how Wikipedia handles transgender issues / claimed gender identity of a mass shooter / and debate about definitions of deadnaming. The assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin who is familiar with these polices, and wants to help with closing this, would be much appreciated! Cheers and happy holidays. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 733 days ago on 27 November 2022) This discussion is ready for a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Toadspike. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 21:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 751 days ago on 9 November 2022) Already relisted once, the discussion has gone stale. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 745 days ago on 15 November 2022) – There's been a fair amount of arguments on how to close this from participants. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- No new comments to this discussion since the end of November. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 713 days ago on 17 December 2022) I believe that a consensus has developed quicker than the 30 days necessary to continue this RFC, and some editors in the discussion have proposed this be a case of WP:SNOW. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (closed as there is a clear consensus for inclusion but not sufficient to call it a WP:SNOW close).Gusfriend (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 755 days ago on 4 November 2022) Experienced closer needed here please. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is a related discussion (although not a formal RFC) that could also be closed at a related article. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to SchroCat. As a note, I did not close the other discussion and would prefer if editors didn't apply the result of this close to the other article. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 03:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 749 days ago on 11 November 2022) RfC has expired. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 09:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 749 days ago on 11 November 2022) Also needs closure like the above two. Crossroads -talk- 22:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 740 days ago on 20 November 2022) RfC has expired; seeking formal closure. Prcc27 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1162 days ago on 23 September 2021) Could any uninvolved editor examine the consensus for a merge of Hilalian invasion of Ifriqiya into Banu Hilal, involving a discussion where I have been a participant. Klbrain (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 745 days ago on 15 November 2022) – the RfC tag has expired..Moxy-
15:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 744 days ago on 15 November 2022), tag expired 'bout two weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, and please keep in mind not every discussion needs a formal closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- True, but considering the general topic-in-question. I figured a formal closure of the RFC, was the best way to go. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 743 days ago on 16 November 2022) The discussion has already lasted for over a month and has largely already sputtered out. Asking an uninvolved editor to close this given the wide range of opinions presented. Also, the RfC tag is no longer present. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by a different vegetable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 737 days ago on 23 November 2022) Is there enough consensus to snow close this RfC that I have started? NotReallySoroka (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 730 days ago on 29 November 2022) The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 792 days ago on 28 September 2022) There was an initial burst of discussion, and then it sat dormant for two months. One additional comment 10 days ago, and nothing since. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 759 days ago on 1 November 2022) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 706 days ago on 24 December 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – unclear why this brief discussion would need formal closure, especially now that the issue is being discussed in other forums. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 706 days ago on 24 December 2022) Please review this discussion . --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} User:Jax 0677 there's nothing here to close. If you think the article should be revdeled, then you may contact an admin (Category:Wikipedia_administrators_willing_to_handle_RevisionDelete_requests) directly to ask, they'll only say no if they think it's inappropriate. JeffUK 11:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
{{resolved}} (Initiated 763 days ago on 28 October 2022) Has been running for almost 2 months, not many new comments. — Czello 13:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Request withdrawn Now closed. — Czello 14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 749 days ago on 11 November 2022) Discussion has ended and RfC was archived, now needing uninvolved closure. VickKiang (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 743 days ago on 17 November 2022) Needs an uninvolved experienced closer. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 731 days ago on 29 November 2022) This discussion has received enough commments to make a close by an uninvolved editor. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Gusfriend (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gusfriend, could you please provide a rationale for the closure? Your very brief comment doesn't explain why. I am sure it wasn't just a vote count, but without explanation it's hard to see what arguments you found compelling or not. I see from your talk page that I am not the first person to have asked you for a better explanation on your closes. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- As always when closing discussions there is always a balance when it comes to how much to include in the closure comment and different editors may differ on what needs to be explained / expanded and I am always happy to explain my reasoning.
- The short answer to your question is that the concerns about the infobox not being needed, clutter, etc. were insufficient to counter the consensus for providing information via an infobox.
- The discussion about what to include in the infobox appears to be coalescing around a minimal infobox which sould have the effect of minimising any clutter.
- When I closed this I was not aware that this issue has been around for over 10 years including a ARB case in 2013 (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes). If I was aware of that fact then I would have left it to someone else to close in case I missed something somewhere in the long history of it so I
will bewould have no concerns with someone opening a closure review. Gusfriend (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)- I am not questioning the validity of the close, but the brevity of your statement, even though I disagree with your interpretation (I’m unconvinced that a good argument was made for inclusion outside WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds, for example).This has been to ArbCom at least twice and is still highly contentious, so it would probably have been best if someone with more experienced closed it, but we are where we are, and there probably wouldn’t be much benefit in going through the closing process again. I would however ask that you expand on your rationale on the page to explain to participants your line of thought: those who go through RFCs deserve that, at least. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Gusfriend, could you please provide a rationale for the closure? Your very brief comment doesn't explain why. I am sure it wasn't just a vote count, but without explanation it's hard to see what arguments you found compelling or not. I see from your talk page that I am not the first person to have asked you for a better explanation on your closes. Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 725 days ago on 4 December 2022), the RFC tag as expired. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) talk 22:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 724 days ago on 5 December 2022) - The RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 780 days ago on 10 October 2022) Same situation as with the other discussion above. This RfD was also relisted a total of three times, but there was no participation after the 3rd relist. CycloneYoris talk! 01:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Tamzin. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 815 days ago on 6 September 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Hi User:Jax 0677 I'm closing this as 'not done' because I don't think it needs closing, it looks like the suggestion in the talk page was actioned. If you think it should be revdeled you're welcome to contact an administrator from Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests JeffUK 11:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 736 days ago on 24 November 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Hello again User:Jax 0677, I don't think this discussion is in need of closing either, the article was split per discussion based on what looks like a clear consensus, it doesn't need anyone to approve that retrospectively. Please note, as it says on this page. "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.", if there's a clear consensus, and especially if the proposed action has been taken, there's no need for an uninvolved editor to be involved. JeffUK 11:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 759 days ago on 1 November 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Wouldn't benefit from a closure. Please note that most discussions don't. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 750 days ago on 10 November 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Nothing to do here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 700 days ago on 30 December 2022) Per WP:MULTI, please close this discussion whose article is the subject of a current move request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discussion speaks for itself at this point, but I have gone ahead and wrapped in archive templates. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}}. Needed for the bot to archive. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 715 days ago on 14 December 2022) Discussion has slowed since starting this RFC 2.5 weeks ago Polyamorph (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hmmm,comments seem to have picked up a little since I posted here Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Generally an RfC is open for 30 days regardless. BD2412 T 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think that is true, it is certainly not what the instructions indicate at the top of this page, otherwise I wouldn't have listed it. Polyamorph (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Generally an RfC is open for 30 days regardless. BD2412 T 19:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}}; closed as no consensus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)- I've un-done your close. As I said in my follow-up comment, users subsequently added additional comments. Polyamorph (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} see above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 792 days ago on 28 September 2022) No new comments for more than a month. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 20:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 801 days ago on 20 September 2022) Has been open for several months at this point. I stepped in a few days ago to resolve remaining issues, so can't close it myself. Listing here since GARs are a notorious backwater and I'm trying to get them moving. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor czar. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 769 days ago on 22 October 2022) The RFC has been done for months but consensus is sufficiently shaky I'd like a closer, especially since some "Yes" votes have some fairly strict criteria on their "Yes". Loki (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 729 days ago on 30 November 2022) – The discussion had been closed then was reopened after some discussion on initial closer's talk. Regardless, this has been open long enough and can be closed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Just a note that the recent relisting began on 9 January 2023. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 03:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}}. Discussion is ongoing. In addition to being recently relisted on the 9th, no fewer than four editors have commented or given an opinion since that relisting. Closure is not recommended at this time. Feel free to resubmit after the standard seven days for relisting. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 09:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 717 days ago on 13 December 2022) The tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 13:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC) - @GoodDay: {{Done}} Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 14:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 696 days ago on 3 January 2023) The consensus here is clear that it doesn't warrant a standalone article, and it should be WP:SNOW closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} I'm not an admin, but this has already been closed by User:Daniel with a consensus to redirect. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 14:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 706 days ago on 24 December 2022) - only one vote since 6 January 2023. starship.paint (exalt) 13:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by ScottishFinnishRadish. starship.paint (exalt) 05:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 742 days ago on 17 November 2022) A completely uninvolved editor is requested to close this due to the nature of accusations that were made by at least 2 users.Ramos1990 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 730 days ago on 30 November 2022) —Michael Z. 20:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 692 days ago on 7 January 2023) Clear consensus; requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion, as closing it myself may possibly provoke further animosity from a certain editor that I am desperately trying to avoid. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}}. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 691 days ago on 8 January 2023) Clear consensus 7 for, 1 against). No new elements in discussion over past few days. Request an uninvolved editor to close as the sole editor against the proposal is seeking in their comments to involve me personally.--Smerus (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 727 days ago on 3 December 2022) Experienced closer needed here please: there's already been too many comments on this discussion which began generating more heat than light some time ago. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtest ping to SchroCat. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 783 days ago on 7 October 2022) Given the nature of this RfC, a closure is needed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 708 days ago on 21 December 2022) Bit of a media brouhaha, see WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media#How to get divorced on Wikipedia. 35 comments, 22 people in discussion, but discussion has died down.
(Initiated 696 days ago on 2 January 2023) czar 18:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 737 days ago on 23 November 2022) Already relisted once, the discussion has gone stale. Frietjes (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 729 days ago on 30 November 2022) – The discussion had been closed then was reopened after some discussion on initial closer's talk. Regardless, this has been open long enough and can be closed. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Mellohi!. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 06:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 683 days ago on 16 January 2023) A user at the thread has opined, but is still unsure, that the topic ban proposal can be closed in favor of enactment, for the discussion has run over 3 days and there is no opposition. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Callanecc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 770 days ago on 21 October 2022) – Its run its course and need an uninvolved eye to judge consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
- This ought to be relisted. There are simply too few sources presented to make an informed closure. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 727 days ago on 3 December 2022) This will need an uninvolved editor to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Can we get a close on this topic? There was a compromise reached in the discussion. This just needs an independent close so it can be implemented. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 720 days ago on 10 December 2022) This is an easy one guys. Needs formal closure. Thank you. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping to Iraniangal777 and Fad Ariff, who requested closure and launched the RfC, respectively. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 762 days ago on 29 October 2022) Little participation in the past two weeks. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 729 days ago on 1 December 2022) No participation since January 3. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 725 days ago on 5 December 2022) No participation since January 11, expect by myself. I would likely have listed this one, had I understood that CR is not for suggesting closure outcomes. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I relisted this one to clear the old log; it is now at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_January_25#Four_on_the_floor_(transmission). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Resolved}}. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 723 days ago on 6 December 2022) No participation since December 28, except by myself; has been relisted 3 times. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 716 days ago on 14 December 2022) No participation since January 6. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 714 days ago on 16 December 2022) No participation since January 12. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 714 days ago on 16 December 2022) No participation since January 14. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 703 days ago on 26 December 2022) No participation since January 15. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 701 days ago on 29 December 2022) No participation since January 7. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 695 days ago on 3 January 2023) No participation since January 11. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 692 days ago on 7 January 2023) No participation since January 11, except by myself. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 683 days ago on 15 January 2023) I think this discussion can be closed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rosguill. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 679 days ago on 20 January 2023) – Please would an uninvolved Administrative Closer, who is neither British nor American (ideally interested in history), take part in this discussion? I believe it has reached an impasse and has stalled. As a lone voice, seeking to ratify a Closer's comments on 19 May 2022 here Talk:Asgill Affair, I feel as though I am being bullied into submission.Anne (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, I see you posted at the discussion. Do you intend to close it further, or can this be marked with one of the templates that will allow archiving? They're listed in the header. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, totally forgot to update the template. I don't think this needs additional input as the consensus from the assembled is pretty clear and there's no need for a formal close. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, I see you posted at the discussion. Do you intend to close it further, or can this be marked with one of the templates that will allow archiving? They're listed in the header. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Anne Ammundsen, this is still not a neutrally-worded request, including language meant to bolster one viewpoint and an unevidenced accusation of misconduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please delete all. I am no longer interested one way or the other. Anne (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 679 days ago on 20 January 2023) It was always going to be difficult for a Brit to go to the George Washington Talk Page with a proposed edit to the Asgill Affair subsection of that article. Especially when the edit involves pointing out that GW violated a sacred international Treaty, which nearly derailed the Peace Talks, and then went on to subsequently skew the official record of events. This has meant that for 2.5 centuries historians have been repeating his skewed account.
- I accept that the place for these events is on the article, and that is where it is. However, a thumbnail account belongs on the Washington page. This is where the buck should stop. This is where Washington should own his mistakes - described by some modern historians as his greatest error of judgement.
- At first I was told my edit was too long, so I have done my best to précis it down, and someone with better sills might be able to cull it a little more – see suggested edit reduced from 363 words to 285 words : 13:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Then I was told that the subject matter was inappropriate for the George Washington article, but my contention that it is relevant is here: 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC). The article should not be a hagiography. Honest and neutrally worded edits, of a derogatory nature, should still have their place.
- The Closer, on the main Asgill Affair article maintained, on 19 May 2022, that this edit could be done, and not only done, but with a link to my interview included. It was my understanding that Closer comments are there to be followed. See here: 14:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Please may I request that a non-Brit, non-American Uninvolved Administrative Closer (interested in history) judges this request on merit, not on consensus, since I am a lone voice (supported only by the May 2022 Closer), outsmarted by those who ‘look after’ Washington’s reputation? Anne (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Anne Ammundsen, requests here need to brief and neutral. The discussion is also very recent and still ongoing, and it's not ready for closure (if one is ever needed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers. The discussion has stalled and reached an impasse. It is highly unlikely any further comments will be made, and my request will wither and die in situ. As a lone voice there, I feel as though I am being bullied into submission, so please allow an uninvolved opinion there.Anne (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Anne, we won't know if it's stalled until some time has passed. Regardless, that part of my concern is secondary. If you would like to re-file an amended request that is brief and neutral, I won't stand in the way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers. The discussion has stalled and reached an impasse. It is highly unlikely any further comments will be made, and my request will wither and die in situ. As a lone voice there, I feel as though I am being bullied into submission, so please allow an uninvolved opinion there.Anne (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 675 days ago on 24 January 2023) - This could use a WP:SNOW close. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 683 days ago on 15 January 2023) Clear consensus has emerged, and in any case most of the discussion took place in the first two days of the RFC. Also invoking WP:SNOW. TheScrubby (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- 6 exclude, 2 include after 4 days isn't quite snow territory in my opinion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. The additional input since this request was posted has made it clear that the discussion is not yet ripe for closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 676 days ago on 22 January 2023) – Clear consensus in favor of a move, conversation quickly stalled Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, and technical request posted at WP:RMT. Knightoftheswords281, please try and keep future requests here neutral (even when it's obvious). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 709 days ago on 21 December 2022) This will require a close from an editor with experience on WP:BLP issues. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{Close}} (non-admin). For the broad questions, it was WP:SNOWing. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 689 days ago on 10 January 2023) No participation since January 19. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Rosguill. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 00:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 702 days ago on 27 December 2022) Please relist or review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 701 days ago on 29 December 2022) – It’s sad, but since multiple editors insist on removing the tag, we need to get this discussion closed. 69.127.228.206 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. Requester was blocked as a sockpuppet, and editors at the article seem to have moved on without formal closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 671 days ago on 28 January 2023) - Creator of the page intervened and redirected the page. Even if he didn't, consensus was already in favor of merging 2023 Memphis protests into Tyre Nichols protests. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, Knightoftheswords281. Please try and keep future requests here neutral; you don't need to mention what you think the closer should decide. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 711 days ago on 19 December 2022) - The RFC tag, has expired. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 707 days ago on 23 December 2022) No new comments for over a week. --Firestar464 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Firestar464: User:Endwise believes that a formal close is not necessary in this case, if your concur I will mark this request as closed. Colonestarrice (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Concur. Firestar464 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Great! {{Close}}. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Concur. Firestar464 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 703 days ago on 27 December 2022) the discussion has gone stale. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 802 days ago on 19 September 2022) Alsee (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} Andre🚐 03:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 715 days ago on 14 December 2022) 30 day RFC duration now complete, no new comments in the last week Polyamorph (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- An at-least-arguably relevant guideline was cited very late into this discussion. I pinged the prior participants and dropped a comment. Obviously anyone can close if they think it's ripe, but I hope to see more people respond to the guideline argument. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think you can close this one way or the other. The comments have run their course. A few people changed their votes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that it's ready for closure, but I'm not the best person to do it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think you can close this one way or the other. The comments have run their course. A few people changed their votes. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 687 days ago on 11 January 2023) Some participants are suggesting a procedural close. It would be helpful to have someone uninvolved either close the discussion or suggest that it should proceed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Several editors are disrupting the RFC because it is a politically controversial subject. Some of those edits are unspecific comments "the RFC is malformed". None of them have responded to requests as to what specifically is malformed and so I can take no action on them.
- These appear to all be spurious. I ask again for Firefangledfeathers to explain what "the RFC is malformed" means or cease and allow the RFC to proceed. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Invasive Spices. I tried my best to keep my request here neutrally worded, and your reply has the effect of biasing a potential closer before they review the discussion. I have explained my view further at the talk page. Would you be willing to remove your comment? If you choose to do so, please remove this one of mine as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's been explained to you multiple times why the RFC was malformed.....you just didn't like the explanations.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}} Andre🚐 03:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- This close gives a consensus which is not the position of anyone in the thread neither myself or those disagreeing with me. As Rja13ww3 and Location and others have stated their position is that my question is highly consequential and the answer is "no." They have stated that these events occurred only in Venezuela. Obviously this is highly consequential to the article because we will either revert Location's edit[2] or not. @Andrevan: How have you arrived at such an obviously bogus conclusion? Invasive Spices (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is not the location for this discussion. Take it to WP:AN or accept that the obvious consensus was that the RFC was malformed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe take it to the closer's talk page first per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I figured we could save them the trouble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe take it to the closer's talk page first per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is not the location for this discussion. Take it to WP:AN or accept that the obvious consensus was that the RFC was malformed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 674 days ago on 25 January 2023)
- Within WP:ANI#Rafaelosornio reverting permanently my secular editing of the article on Padre Pio; topic ban discussion has ran for several days. An uninvolved administrator is requested for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor SilkTork. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 13:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 682 days ago on 16 January 2023) The consensus seems clear, but if I'm reading the closing instructions correctly, I'm not allowed to close the discussion as I have commented in it. Review would be appreciated. Matma Rex talk 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 772 days ago on 18 October 2022) There haven't been new !votes since 26 October. The discussion has been quite short and a relatively clear consensus has emerged, but some editors still disagree, so a speedy closure by an administrator would be appreciated. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 721 days ago on 8 December 2022) Discussion has slowed and is repeating. No new comments in 3.5 days. Consensus for this RfC may have extensions to other related 9to5xxx websites. Different editors say they see different consensus. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think this one should stay open a bit longer. Andre🚐 03:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: It's in an archive. Do you mean that you would like it restored to RSN for discussion to continue? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think so, it's a bit tough to close at present so re-listing would be best IMO. Andre🚐 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say go for re-listing it then. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think so, it's a bit tough to close at present so re-listing would be best IMO. Andre🚐 23:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Andrevan: It's in an archive. Do you mean that you would like it restored to RSN for discussion to continue? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - discussion was archived and even passed the "DoNotArchiveUntil" duration. - jc37 07:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 694 days ago on 5 January 2023) – This discussion is spread across two different pages (originating in the talk page and then moved to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Andy_Ogles). Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 674 days ago on 25 January 2023) – Seven days have passed—even before that, some people were antsy to stop talking about the article title. There's been plenty of participation, so hopefully, that helps. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}} Valereee (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 673 days ago on 26 January 2023) No CfD's on this date have been closed, despite several having reached consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like they're {{already done}}, with thanks to Qwerfjkl and Kbdank71. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 697 days ago on 2 January 2023) – Initiated on the 2nd Jan, unbeknown to me closed on the 13th Jan - I would be happy to start a proper RFC but being honest I don't know the best way of dealing with this as this wasn't left open for 30 days and I wouldn't know how to incoperate the previous RFC into a new one (unless I pinged everyone which may ruffle some feathers), Thanks), –Davey2010Talk 00:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: Presumably you mean this removal of the
{{rfc}}tag (which was at 00:01, 4 February 2023, not 13 January at all). That is Legobot working as designed, because the next timestamp is 03:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC), which is 32 days, 20 hours and 32 minutes earlier than the edit concerned - definitely more than 30 days. Unrelated to that, this edit was improper use of the tag, which is not for use on Split matters, which have their own processes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)- @Redrose64, Why don't you open your eyes before making such moronic replies!, Had you bothered to open your eyes you would've seen the RFC tag was added by myself on the 3rd[3] and removed by the bot the next day! - No RFC was on that page for 30 days and yes once the bot removed it I realise it all centered around the OPs timestamp. No one gives a flying toss about RFCNOT, I'll just restore the close seeing as no one else gives a flying toss about it. –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Already done}}. Davey2010, there's nothing for closers here to do. You can challenge the closure, following the steps at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, or you can start a new discussion, following the process at WP:PROSPLIT. 02:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 693 days ago on 6 January 2023) RfC tag has expired. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 01:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Iamreallygoodatcheckers {{Done}}. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 671 days ago on 27 January 2023) One of several old CfD's on this date that has reached consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- These have all been {{done}}. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 798 days ago on 23 September 2022) - this discussion has been open for a while now, and there has not been any recent fresh input or discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 681 days ago on 18 January 2023) Last vote was a few days ago. Relisting has expired. Requesting an uninvolved party to close.--Estar8806 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 681 days ago on 18 January 2023) Last vote was a few days ago. Relisting has expired. Requesting an uninvolved party to close.--Estar8806 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. When consensus is achieved, feel free to request closure again. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 725 days ago on 5 December 2022) Stale discussion, and overdue changes to an important article are being held up at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders until this is resolved. —Michael Z. 15:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- I started to close this as "no consensus", but it really comes down to each side doing another "let's try to interpret the infobox policy our way to support our position" type of discussion. And there are so few commenters, I don't think it even nears to being able to be called a "local consensus". So probably better to just let this one stay in the archives unclosed. - jc37 06:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 672 days ago on 27 January 2023) – This notice has been in place long enough. Several pro, one con, several comments Doug butler (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}}. This one should remain open for at least seven more days, because the base name, "Jackaroo", had no where to go. Please feel free to request closure again after seven days. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Should I now put a banner at "Jackaroo (trainee)" and its talk page? I naively thought with "Jackaroo" renamed "Jackaroo (disambiguation)" the base name would be free for a simple move and I could update all links to "Jackaroo (trainee)". Doug butler (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 666 days ago on 2 February 2023) I think this should be closed, since the consensus has been achieved, in favor of TBANning Jim Michael 2, but no consensus for TheScrubby. Discussions have been dying down after 4 February 2023. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by ScottishFinnishRadish. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 692 days ago on 7 January 2023) I feel a rubber stamp wouldn't hurt here. --Trialpears (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I was going to close this, but, I'm a bit hesitant. How many contributors should we need for removing a speedy criteria, and not have it merely seem like a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? If someone could point to similar discussions, that would be most welcome. - jc37 03:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jc37 So I'm very involved, but here are the links to the recentish removal discussions I remember: A5, T3, U3 and T2. Aspects I would consider if I had local consensus concerns are how it was advertised and how many people are likely to be affected by the proposal. --Trialpears (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds fair.
(Initiated 688 days ago on 11 January 2023) Need a uninvolived editor familiar with WP:BIO issues to review and close. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}} @Nemov: Was a bit trickier than expected. Would not mind any experienced closers checking or giving feedback if necessary. GabberFlasted (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, the RfC was problematic for the reasons you outlined. I've opened up a discussion that's more narrow that hopefully solves the remaining question. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 671 days ago on 27 January 2023)
Clear consensus in need of closure czar 20:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 659 days ago on 9 February 2023) - Can we have someone quickly review this to determine if it should have a speedy resolution please? AFD should not have been the path taken. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a policy- or guideline-based reason for closing this early (none of the speedy deletion criteria apply, for instance), so marking as {{Not done}} for now. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 685 days ago on 13 January 2023) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677 {{Done}}, consensus was to remove importance indicator from template. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 654 days ago on 13 February 2023) It's a move review that should be speedily closed. We had a pretty contentious move request a few months ago at Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus (a... reasonably contentious article), closed by User:Sceptre as "no consensus". Then we just had another move request of that same page, which was closed again by User:Sceptre. That's......... not how requested moves are done. You're not allowed to close the same debate twice. WP:RMCI is explicit that involved editors cannot close debates, and it's explicit for a reason. The closer has simply dismissed both our procedures and practices out of hand. WP:MRV is so far unanimous against the closer, but move review debates can take upwards of a month, and this close is so outrageous that it really ought to be overturned immediately to send a message that you simply cannot do this. Red Slash 06:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. Another endorsement of the RM closure and moratorium has been entered, so this move review should stay open for at least the usual seven days. Feel free to request closure again after that standard period. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 670 days ago on 28 January 2023) Almost open for 3 weeks now and discussion has slowed to a trickle. No new comments since February 9 and most around that date were related to when the said discussion would be closed. Given the contentious nature of the topic at hand, requesting closure here (please see the phase 3 section for the three relevant discussions). NoahTalk 13:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah {{Done}}; closed as a Proposal 9 with Proposal 2's C5. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 06:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 660 days ago on 8 February 2023) A consensus is very clear, and this is a very minor change --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 17:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}; there is clearly no consensus. @Tbf69, I would wait the 30 days. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 725 days ago on 5 December 2022)
Close requested from an uninvolved editor. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)- After looking at the discussion, I remembered that I have commented a year ago on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with respect to an RfC on including material support to Ukraine in the infobox. I won't be closing this discussion in light of that, as I could be seen as being WP:INVOLVED given that this infobox discussion is related to that article. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 14:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
- After looking at the discussion, I remembered that I have commented a year ago on Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine with respect to an RfC on including material support to Ukraine in the infobox. I won't be closing this discussion in light of that, as I could be seen as being WP:INVOLVED given that this infobox discussion is related to that article. Chess (talk) (please use
- Addressed this previously as "not done" - [4]. But if they really want "no consensus" tags on the discussion, I guess I can do that. - jc37 11:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 699 days ago on 31 December 2022) – Closure by an uninvolved experienced editor is requested. The question is about capitalization of the before the name of the African country t/The Gambia. There have been no !votes in the last 12 days. This would affect thousands of articles and over 100 page titles. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... BilledMammal (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 697 days ago on 1 January 2023) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. This RfC (which hasn't even started yet) is being moderated and closed by designees of the Arbitration Committee, so you need to contact them if you have any concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 683 days ago on 16 January 2023) A unanimous consensus, albeit small, has been established. -The Gnome (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Why are you requesting closure? See the yellow pool ball at the top of this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 686 days ago on 13 January 2023) No participation since February 2, and consensus is unanimous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Relisted due to lack of specific examples of pages that could be disambiguated, and to clear the old RfD log page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)- {{not done}} for ClueBot III. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 655 days ago on 13 February 2023) Minimal participation, and consensus is unanimous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 687 days ago on 12 January 2023) Expired RfC. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as consensus to deprecate WP:CSD criteria P1 and P2. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 694 days ago on 4 January 2023) – The RFD discussion on Algebra 1, Algebra 2, etc. is over a month old, and we are still unable to reach consensus. The main disagreement seems to be between deleting Algebra 3 and deleting all of the redirects. There seems to be a consensus to delete Algebra 3, but not to delete all of the redirects. Mast303 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This is now the only remaining open RfD on this date. I don't think another relist is necesssary here, as there does seem to be a consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BDD (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 683 days ago on 15 January 2023) No participation since February 9. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- This is now the only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Anachronist (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 668 days ago on 31 January 2023) No participation since February 14. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_21#Ural_District. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 664 days ago on 4 February 2023) Consensus is unanimous since latest relist, but redirect is fully protected. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by ClydeFranklin (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 663 days ago on 5 February 2023) No participation since February 12. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Patar knight (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 663 days ago on 5 February 2023) Minimal participation since last relist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Patar knight (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 662 days ago on 5 February 2023) Minimal participation since February 12. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_21#Microbear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 658 days ago on 9 February 2023) I'm pretty sure this can be closed, but an administrator's judgment will be needed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Patar knight (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 666 days ago on 2 February 2023) Consensus is clear. 69.112.204.237 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} There are coordinators there that close such discussions. NoahTalk 21:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 654 days ago on 14 February 2023) Discussion's been going on for over 7 days, and support is relativley unanimous. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 650 days ago on 17 February 2023) Oner user bludgeoning the discussion, which has long since become circular. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 647 days ago on 20 February 2023) Relatively recent discussion, but consensus appears clear and this dispute may be becoming a time sucker given the apparent consensus. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Doing... nableezy - 16:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 683 days ago on 15 January 2023) A consensus seems to have developed; most recent "votes" were cast on Feb. 3rd, and discussion seems to have died down. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- IMO, since this not a straight up WP:SNOW, we should wait till the RfC tag expires before a close done. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 16:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like this discussion is about to make the discussion irrelvant. Nemov (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 676 days ago on 22 January 2023)
Please close this RfC by clearly noting what symbols should be use for (the pound) sterling and any requisite MOS changes. --NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 673 days ago on 25 January 2023)
RfC will need an independent editor to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}. At some point we need to accept that these infobox RFCs aren't so radioactive that an RFC that passes RFA without a cratchat needs formal closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I'm not sure we're quite there yet. Nemov (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 670 days ago on 29 January 2023) The consensus seems to be clear, so it needs to be closed 2400:ADC1:477:8500:78A6:EC02:832:46C8 (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this would be a WP:SNOW close. I'd wait for the 30 day mark to be met, then close it. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 688 days ago on 11 January 2023) The RfC tag was removed by a bot after voting dried out. Two of the proposed options received a high and comparable number of "yes" votes. The way forward seems to be unclear (see the discussion section below the RfC), so formal closure is requested. (ThunderPX (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC))
- {{Done}} User:ThunderPX - I have closed it, noting a slight consensus for Option A. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 685 days ago on 14 January 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 684 days ago on 14 January 2023) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this RfC? Note: Given criticism of the close of a prior round of discussion, it is especially important that the closer here not be involved with respect to the topic area. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 695 days ago on 3 January 2023) No participation since 3rd relist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rosguill. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 680 days ago on 18 January 2023) No participation since February 3; I am not sure if this should be closed or relisted. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rosguill. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 677 days ago on 22 January 2023) No participation since February 14. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jay. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 658 days ago on 10 February 2023) Consensus is unanimous; gtwo similar redirects mentioned by the user can be handled in a new RfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rosguill. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 657 days ago on 11 February 2023) No participation since February 12. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rosguill. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 654 days ago on 13 February 2023) Appears to be a candidate for WP:SNOW close, with a vote of 12:0. —Michael Z. 23:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 778 days ago on 12 October 2022) Enough opinions. Last edit is from 21 October 2022. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 682 days ago on 16 January 2023) The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to GoodDay — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 682 days ago on 16 January 2023) The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to GoodDay — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 691 days ago on 8 January 2023) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Jax 0677, you have been told multiple times that old, ordinary discussions do not require closes and do not benefit from them. Please stop requesting them in such cases. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Reply - How do I know which discussions benefit from closure. That one seems like a question that affects how articles are written. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not about the content of the discussion, but the format. In disorganized discussions like this, where people are commenting on each other's comments instead of some central, concrete proposal, it is generally not feasible to determine a consensus that said concrete should or should not be done, as people are not actually saying how they feel about X specifically and you cannot reliably infer this information. If, after an informal discussion like this has been had, if it is still unclear how to proceed, an RfC is necessary. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: It is very possible to draw a consensus from an unstructured discussion. It was something that was very common 10 years ago or so. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose I articulated myself poorly. If the discussion is focused enough, yes, it definitely is possible. I do not think this is one of them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: It is very possible to draw a consensus from an unstructured discussion. It was something that was very common 10 years ago or so. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not about the content of the discussion, but the format. In disorganized discussions like this, where people are commenting on each other's comments instead of some central, concrete proposal, it is generally not feasible to determine a consensus that said concrete should or should not be done, as people are not actually saying how they feel about X specifically and you cannot reliably infer this information. If, after an informal discussion like this has been had, if it is still unclear how to proceed, an RfC is necessary. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Reply - How do I know which discussions benefit from closure. That one seems like a question that affects how articles are written. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 648 days ago on 20 February 2023) - Very annoying merge tag on top of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. --- Tbf69 P • T 16:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ErnestKrause at 17:03 on 1 March 2023 (UTC).P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 649 days ago on 18 February 2023) There's a topic ban proposal in there, so this is going to need an admin to close. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} in Special:Diff/1142680274 by CaptainEek — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 646 days ago on 21 February 2023) Discussion involves a proposal for a topic ban, among other options, so an admin closer will be required. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Salvio giuliano. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 704 days ago on 26 December 2022) The outcome of the RfC is not clear according to various participants. An uninvolved closer could assess whether there is a slight consensus on one (or some) of the options. Yakme (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 682 days ago on 17 January 2023) With some disagreement on the outcome, an uninvolved closer is needed to assess the discussion's outcome. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 675 days ago on 23 January 2023) The discussion has been stopped and no more new comments have been added since January 31.
- {{done}} but this was near unanimous and didn't need an uninvolved close. Levivich (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 657 days ago on 10 February 2023)
See Move to close?
Because the underlying dispute is long-standing, and in the event a followup RFC is needed, closure by an experienced admin would be optimal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 701 days ago on 29 December 2022) No participation since 3rd relist. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 694 days ago on 4 January 2023) No participation since February 9. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Legoktm. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 664 days ago on 4 February 2023) Consensus is clear here following the latest relist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Legoktm. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 662 days ago on 5 February 2023) No participation since February 24. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 662 days ago on 5 February 2023) No participation since February 24. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 661 days ago on 7 February 2023) No participation since February 23. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 657 days ago on 11 February 2023) No participation since February 23. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 657 days ago on 11 February 2023) No participation since February 25. Only remaining open RfD on this date. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Primefac. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 656 days ago on 11 February 2023) No participation since February 20. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Legoktm. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 656 days ago on 12 February 2023) No participation since February 20. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 656 days ago on 12 February 2023) No participation since February 24. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 653 days ago on 15 February 2023) No participation since February 24. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 647 days ago on 21 February 2023) No participation since February 27. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 645 days ago on 22 February 2023) Consensus is unanimous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 645 days ago on 22 February 2023) Consensus is unanimous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 645 days ago on 22 February 2023) Consensus is unanimous. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Legoktm. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 732 days ago on 27 November 2022) New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. HappyWith (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping to HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! HappyWith (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 714 days ago on 16 December 2022) --- Tbf69 P • T 17:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 666 days ago on 1 February 2023) RFC tag expired today, no new !votes in 13 days. Requesting an uninvolved close as discussions surrounding this one have been contentious. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 678 days ago on 21 January 2023) No participation since 3rd relist. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 670 days ago on 29 January 2023) No participation since 1st relist on February 9. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 693 days ago on 6 January 2023) RfC tag expired long ago, due for a closing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 681 days ago on 17 January 2023) Discussion was started in January. It's been lying unclosed for long enough that the bot archived it and I had to go unarchive it. It doesn't seem like a particularly controversial RFC, and the only reason I think it needs to be closed at all is that I'd like to use the consensus to add PMG to WP:RSP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LokiTheLiar (talk • contribs) 02:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this needs to be properly closed or added to RSP. RSP is for sources that are widely/problematically used and/or frequently discussed, not just for random obscure unused sources that people feel the need to call an RfC for solely to bloat the list (which is already unwieldy long) for no good reason. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Hemiauchenia - This RfC should, in my opinion, be added to RSP - do consider that as any citations to this would be YouTube links, they are likely to be instantly reverted on being added despite the (apparent to me) consensus that they are reliable (considerations apply). casualdejekyll 17:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, what casualdejekyll said. The reason this source isn't used is because it'll get immediately removed because it's on YouTube. That is why I started the RFC in the first place. Loki (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
{{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! Loki (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 667 days ago on 31 January 2023) Requesting formal closure of RfC on Circumcision article. Please note, that OP did not bold or explicitly state their !vote, and some users seemed to prefer a compromise rather than a full “yes” or “no”. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 652 days ago on 16 February 2023)
Discussion is stale, needs to be closed . Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 16:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. This really didn't need closure, as the consensus was clear and obvious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 760 days ago on 30 October 2022). New comments are not being added at a substantial rate. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 679 days ago on 19 January 2023) – Only one !vote in the past ~2.5 weeks, and both sides are repeating the same arguments without any sign of compromise. DecafPotato (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- @DecafPotato: I have closed the merge discussion, but elected to not implement the actual merge myself. Soni (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- putting {{done}} for the bot to archive. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 640 days ago on 28 February 2023) I think a clear consensus—albeit a small one—has arisen in the discussion. There is a mixture of issues, and the close would benefit from someone who is experienced at evaluating sources. Betty Logan (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @Betty Logan: I didn't see the issue as particularly contentious wrt source evaluation, so have closed the discussion myself. Soni (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 665 days ago on 2 February 2023) As if March 11, 25 editors have responded, including the initiator, Freoh. The voting is somewhat confusing because of inconsistent wording in votes. As best I can do: 18 Oppose including 3 who did not use the specific word, 4 Support including 1 Support in Principle and 1 Yes by the initiator, 1 Partial Support in Principle, 1 Support in Principle, but Not in These Terms (an Oppose?), and 1 Neutral. A couple editors commented the question was not neutral, but to me its meaning was clear enough. Note that the question was edited at least 2 times over the course of the RfC, though "strikethroughs" were used to show what was changed. Some commenting continues which is why I responded "no" regarding Done. As an active participant, I am requesting closure and review. Allreet (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 661 days ago on 7 February 2023) Expired RFC. There are two questions asked. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fixing ping to ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 02:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 659 days ago on 9 February 2023) Expired RfC. Appears unanimous, but as an involved editor (and the RfC starter), I do not want to close. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 641 days ago on 27 February 2023) Requesting formal closure czar 20:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to czar. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 20:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 637 days ago on 3 March 2023) - Requesting a decision on renaming and closing the proposal that I initiated. Many thanks. User:YGluhova (talk) 9:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Talk:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes#RfC about if the 2023 Kingston tornado qualifies as a possible EF4
(Initiated 657 days ago on 10 February 2023) Expired RfC. Comments occurred on both options (total of 11 editors), so determination should occur. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}} Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 16:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping @Elijahandskip: Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 16:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 677 days ago on 22 January 2023) - Requesting a neutral close of this merge proposal that I initiated. Many thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 679 days ago on 19 January 2023) This is quite possibly the largest RFC in the history of Wikipedia. While I note that a full 30 days has not yet run its course, the !votes have started to slow, and discussion has centered upon the WMF response. It may take some time to put together a panel of uninvolved editors to close this, or for a single editor to weigh everything with due diligence, so I'm making this request to get that ball rolling, as I don't think it wise to leave this open much past 30 days. To whoever takes up the mantle of closing this, I applaud your courage! schetm (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
It may take some time to put together a panel of uninvolved editors to close this, so I'm making this request to get that ball rolling, as I don't think it wise to leave this open much past 30 days.
I don't think a panel is required. BilledMammal (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)- I've responded to you on the RFC talk page - we needn't clog things up here. schetm (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: Before any editor(s) commits to closing this discussion, please be aware that this RfC has had more than 600 participants and over 500 !votes, so its outcome will be intensely scrutinized. Please also make sure you have the time and ability to read through the entire RfC in full, and recuse from closing if you participated in the RfC. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- It won't be me - Though I don't think I did the "support/oppose", I definitely commented in the discussion(s). Whoever closes this should be aware, people have split this discussion to several pages, several times. So there is going to be a fair amount to read and assess. - jc37 16:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, everything is located on the main Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022 and the discussion subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022/Discussion. There are no other pages. It may also be helpful to read Wikipedia talk:Vector 2022, though that is likely not feasible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd recommend a paneled closure by three or so administrators. This 100% shouldn't be closed by a non-admin. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 00:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also have fun closing this... I put the RfC and the discussion into a word counter and it says it's 214,371 words long. For reference that's about the length of Catch-22 (174,269) and The Great Gatsby (47,094) combined. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think three admins are needed. The last one was closed by one admin and one non-admin (right) and that seemed plenty. Having even more editors involved is a bit of waste of resources. We should not set an ever-growing precedent on panelled closures. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved and willing to help close if needed, as long as there are 1-2 other people, preferably at least one admin. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Should we make a post at WP:AN inviting interested admins? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus: I've started an AN thread already, but formal invitation of admins hasn't been done. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm wondering, should we drop a note on the administrators' newsletter too? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus: I've started an AN thread already, but formal invitation of admins hasn't been done. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Should we make a post at WP:AN inviting interested admins? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Femke I remember reading some wikipedia research about how the English wiki has turned towards interpretation of rules rather than writing new ones, similar to how now many countries use courts to interpret constitutions rather than alter existing ones. I wonder if the increasing prominence of panelled closures is some extension of this trend. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm uninvolved and willing to help close if needed, as long as there are 1-2 other people, preferably at least one admin. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think three admins are needed. The last one was closed by one admin and one non-admin (right) and that seemed plenty. Having even more editors involved is a bit of waste of resources. We should not set an ever-growing precedent on panelled closures. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also have fun closing this... I put the RfC and the discussion into a word counter and it says it's 214,371 words long. For reference that's about the length of Catch-22 (174,269) and The Great Gatsby (47,094) combined. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 02:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- I've just read that whole discussion with my RfC closer hat on, and after reflecting on it I've decided not to involve myself because I'd need an asbestos talk page. I do want to weigh in on the question of whether an admin closer is needed, and I think that request is preposterous. There is absolutely no basis whatsoever for a sysop close.
- We ask sysops to close difficult discussions where it's necessary to weigh the evidence in the light of policies and guidelines. But that discussion is about a matter of aesthetic judgment. There is no evidence to consider and the only policy involved is WP:CONSENSUS -- specifically the paragraphs at WP:DETCON and WP:CONEXCEPT. Certain of the !votes can safely be disregarded because they're made by people who're obviously not in good faith, but not enough of them to affect the outcome.
- I would say that that close is utterly bloody obvious.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- There is one more guideline that is relevant for a close, even if in a much more limited fashion than the above two given the discussion: WP:ACCESSIBILITY. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- That's fair. I still think the outcome is utterly bloody obvious.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, note that the previous two closers had only one user talk page discussion opened on the matter (I assume asbestos talk page refers to anticipated pushback?) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- That has been the biggest surprise of my Wikipedia career. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is one more guideline that is relevant for a close, even if in a much more limited fashion than the above two given the discussion: WP:ACCESSIBILITY. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please, please close this before the discussion dies out? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
We're a week away from a month since I initiated this request. May I urge that this be closed as soon as possible? Discussion is devolving into attacks. I get that this is a mammoth RFC, and that a good many people have weighed in and are inelligible to close it, but this has become an open sore, and leaving this as an open sore on our encyclopedia is not a good thing. schetm (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Schetm: I posted a thread at WP:AN. Hopefully that will get someone willing to close. I participated in the discussion and I'm not an administrator, so I'm personally of little help here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I started to write up a closing rationale - it's not finished, but it basically uses direct quotations from points on both support, oppose and neutral that I felt made salient points. However, I realised (and forgot) I opposed the rolling back, so I'm going to have to recuse anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Doing... This might take a day or two. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 662 days ago on 6 February 2023) Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 684 days ago on 15 January 2023) Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Does this really need an uninvolved closure?
Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.
That seems like it applies in this case. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, this didn't seem to need an admin close so I did it. Loki (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 654 days ago on 13 February 2023) nableezy - 23:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- bump, nableezy - 17:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Vanamonde93. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 693 days ago on 6 January 2023)
Per the closure of Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2023_February#1948_Palestinian_exodus, a new close of this move request is needed, and again per that move review closure, preferably by an uninvolved admin. nableezy - 22:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
In progress. Galobtter is working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)- {{done}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 22:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 651 days ago on 17 February 2023) No comments since 11 March 2023 and this RFC was initiated a month ago. There is a small majority for changing the info box picture. Please note, there are two RFCs, the one I am wanting to close is the one about the info box picture. The current vote count is 16 votes for A and 20 votes for B. When this RFC is closed, would this majority be enough to be called a consensus to change the infobox picture? DDMS123 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @DDMS123: the closer will determine if there is a consensus to change the image. The majority wanting B is not the determining factor. Consensus is not a vote. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 05:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor DrKay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 646 days ago on 22 February 2023) The two sides appear to disagree markedly on how to interpret relevant policies and guidelines. A closer with a firm grasp of P&G would therefore be helpful. Further complicating the matter, the discussion has been targeted by off-Wiki canvassing (Twitter, 4chan) and by multiple socking LTAs. Generalrelative (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Did a non-admin closure. Feel free to open it back up if you'd like to wait for an admin. Loki (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 728 days ago on 2 December 2022) Last !vote was 27 days ago, and later discussion among involved editors indicates a lack of ability to develop consensus without formal closure from an uninvolved party. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd add this is probably not suitable for a non-admin close (WP:BADNAC). Bon courage (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Shibbolethink. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 635 days ago on 5 March 2023) Could we get a speedy close on this move discussion? There seems to be a consensus that the current title is poor, and that Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections would be appropriate. It may be that other moves are discussed in the future, but for the time being a title that includes "Allegations" is likely needed particularly given WP:BLPO concerns. I am reluctant to close this myself given my involvement in editing the article and participating in the discussion there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor robertsky. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 710 days ago on 20 December 2022)
Needs a close. No active votes in months and no clear objection given about why the first sentence can’t be merged with existing content in the article and why the second sentence (an unfounded claim cited to a Q&A source) shouldn’t be removed. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Fad Ariff: Your close request should be neutral and not an attempt to prejudice the closer. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Sennalen (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 659 days ago on 9 February 2023) As of March 10, there have been 16 editors who surveyed a response. Six for A, 10 for B. People that voted for the options gave different reasons. It may be possible for someone to determine consensus by blending both options and making a determination of Wikipedia policies. Elias (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Eliasbizannes, I'll be moving to close in the next day or two. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Eliasbizannes. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 661 days ago on 6 February 2023) No new comments since February, and a lot of different options to wade through, though from my read they boil down to two main camps. Would be good to get a new pair of eyes in here to try and close the discussion finally. Turnagra (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 645 days ago on 23 February 2023) The RFC tag has expired. Unsure if it's to be closed or relisted, as the votes are fairly close.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 755 days ago on 5 November 2022) Requesting consensus for this discussion. Thank you. Awshort (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Done}} Sennalen (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 693 days ago on 6 January 2023) A contentious discussion (can you tell from the title?), ready for closure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
DoingThinker78 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)- Estimated final summary and closing time working an hour a day: by 7 May 2023. I will add in this thread dates worked to signal I haven't abandoned the task. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Thinker78. You think it's going to take you more than 30 hours of work to close the discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am detailed oriented and analyze carefully. It is a 15,000 words document or about 40 pages. Just reading it without analysis takes more than an hour. But one needs to analyze each comment, its relevancy, whether it is within policy and guidelines, whether it's accurate, how it weighs with other comments and replies, etc. Thinker78 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thinker78, are you experienced with closing RfCs? This is a contentious one in a contentious topic area, and it would not be a great pick for an inexperienced closer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have a lot of experience in discussions, disputes, consensus, and relevant guidance. But I am not experienced in the procedure of closing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there's a an experienced discussion closer that you trust, or one you've interacted with before, maybe you could ask their advice on whether you're the right person to work this one in particular. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Non can do. But given that you asked for a closer I will respect your call. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Thinker78. Can you clarify what you mean by the above comment? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. You asked for a closer so I understand if you want someone else to close the discussion. There is a volunteer (Ixtal) so I will yield to them if it's ok with you. I understand your misgivings due to the lenght of the discussion and that I haven't closed a discussion before. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thinker78, if you'd like to collaborate on a close or leave it to a more experienced closer I'm down to help out. I don't think that if you are inexperienced at closing that starting with an Israel one is a good idea, but I also strongly believe that since the closure is very likely to be challenged whatever the result (due to the topic area) there will be plenty of chances to address errors in your closure. However, when you indicate you are in the process of closing an RfC, it is usually expected you will take at most a week to do so if it is an individual close and at most two weeks if it is a panel close (in my experience). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will explore more the closing work and will follow your advice of choosing shorter discussions. But my initial impression is that one hour of work for each 1,000 words in a thread is reasonable to properly analyze the discussion. I yield to you the closing at hand. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- It takes me about 30-45 minutes to write a close after I'm done reading, so in this case if SFR hadn't closed it (much appreciated ^u^) it would have taken me about 1.5-2h maximum. Hope this reference is helpful for you Thinker78. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I will explore more the closing work and will follow your advice of choosing shorter discussions. But my initial impression is that one hour of work for each 1,000 words in a thread is reasonable to properly analyze the discussion. I yield to you the closing at hand. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Thinker78. Can you clarify what you mean by the above comment? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Non can do. But given that you asked for a closer I will respect your call. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there's a an experienced discussion closer that you trust, or one you've interacted with before, maybe you could ask their advice on whether you're the right person to work this one in particular. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have a lot of experience in discussions, disputes, consensus, and relevant guidance. But I am not experienced in the procedure of closing. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thinker78, are you experienced with closing RfCs? This is a contentious one in a contentious topic area, and it would not be a great pick for an inexperienced closer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am detailed oriented and analyze carefully. It is a 15,000 words document or about 40 pages. Just reading it without analysis takes more than an hour. But one needs to analyze each comment, its relevancy, whether it is within policy and guidelines, whether it's accurate, how it weighs with other comments and replies, etc. Thinker78 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Thinker78. You think it's going to take you more than 30 hours of work to close the discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 652 days ago on 15 February 2023) No comments since March 5 and the RfC tag will expire soon. Please note there are TWO discussions there, not just one. NoahTalk 18:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- working on it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- RFC has been closed. As this is my first RFC closure, I would appreciate a more experienced editor giving me some feedback if necessary ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Licks-rocks. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 633 days ago on 6 March 2023). No comments for 10 days. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: {{done}} ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 12:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 1292 days ago on 16 May 2021) Could someone close this old RFC? I missed that it had been archived and the page could do with a consensus about this since the issue was never resolved. Thank you. - MA Javadi (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 632 days ago on 7 March 2023) Discussion opened for three weeks, no voting for 12 days but I think that there is currently 100% agreement on this to merge. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 06:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- {{not done}} A discussion with 3 participants doesn't really need closing, and cannot be meaningfully closed. You can feel free to go ahead with the merger without a formal closure. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 982 days ago on 22 March 2022) Please formally close this discussion, Last vote/comment 18 April 2022, Huldra (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}} ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 08:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 675 days ago on 23 January 2023) Please formally close this discussion, Last vote/comment was 14 February 2023, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 668 days ago on 31 January 2023)
Would someone please let me know what, if anything, I should ask the mw:Editing team to do for new editors? The discussion was archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 199#Make "Always give me the visual editor if possible" default for new editors. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- {{done}}, as best I could. Hope that helps—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
(Initiated 877 days ago on 5 July 2022)
Would it be possible to get this close re-evaluated since it turns out numerous editors were sockpuppets acting abusively to influence the discussion. I would have asked the original closer, but they appear to have left the project, not having edited in a number of months. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Locke Cole. I don't think this is the right venue for this request. You could reasonably start a close review at WP:AN or start a new discussion, possible with a new RfC to come. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- If I subtract the socks and all the IP editors, and then give appropriate weight to the BLP implications -- which I think we have to do because, despite the acronym Biography of "Living" Persons, these rules do specifically include the recently deceased -- I still get to "no consensus to include". But I think FFF is absolutely right, in that given the amount of time that's passed, and given that it was a sock-tainted consensus, it would be reasonable for you to start that discussion afresh.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your time and advice, I'll begin a new discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Wise. I'm marking this {{Not done}}. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your time and advice, I'll begin a new discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- If I subtract the socks and all the IP editors, and then give appropriate weight to the BLP implications -- which I think we have to do because, despite the acronym Biography of "Living" Persons, these rules do specifically include the recently deceased -- I still get to "no consensus to include". But I think FFF is absolutely right, in that given the amount of time that's passed, and given that it was a sock-tainted consensus, it would be reasonable for you to start that discussion afresh.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)