Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 33
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 39 |
(Initiated 1150 days ago on 25 September 2021) While this RfC hasn't run for 30 days yet, it may be time for a close. The last comment was a week and a half ago. Note to closer, do not miss the existence of the prior RfC now in the archives. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump#RFC: Should we mention historical evaluations of Trump's presidency? and Talk:Donald Trump#Possible wording for historical rankings sentence
(Initiated 1148 days ago on 27 September 2021) I have summarized the discussion at the top of each section, but would still like an uninvolved editor to close it formally. Discussion has slowed significantly and has not been contentious. Cpotisch (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to point out that new !votes are still coming in as of 10/11/21. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Er, they're not - 10 November is almost a whole month in the future. Or do you mean 21 November? That's even further off --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: - U.S. uses Calendar date#Gregorian, month–day–year (MDY) instead of Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY). starship.paint (exalt) 02:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Think what we're seeing here is some of that wonderfully dry, oer the pond humour from... thereabouts.
P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Note: There were three or more !votes on October 14. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Think what we're seeing here is some of that wonderfully dry, oer the pond humour from... thereabouts.
- @Redrose64: - U.S. uses Calendar date#Gregorian, month–day–year (MDY) instead of Calendar date#Gregorian, day–month–year (DMY). starship.paint (exalt) 02:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Er, they're not - 10 November is almost a whole month in the future. Or do you mean 21 November? That's even further off --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by @MelanieN. ––FormalDude talk 03:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1184 days ago on 22 August 2021) The consensus is quite clear, but as I initiated the proposal and the WMF might push back against it I'd like to request an uninvolved closure. The related Phabricator ticket is T54165. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1154 days ago on 21 September 2021) Nobody new has commented in a week and it appears to me that there's a rough consensus. I was involved, however, so I'd like to request an uninvolved editor close the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1160 days ago on 15 September 2021) I should add this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Bruckbauer too. Avilich (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1155 days ago on 20 September 2021) Someone needs to close this discussion as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George L. Knox II, both of which were last relisted in early October. Probably not an easy close, and administrators seem to have been avoiding it for that reason. Avilich (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1155 days ago on 20 September 2021) I actually came here myself to request a close on the same discussions (as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter I. Lawson, which has similarly been open for almost a month). I agree fully with Avilich on what's said above (despite our disagreement at each of these AfDs): these discussions have dragged on interminably, far past the point of any new arguments being raised, and really ought to be dealt with. jp×g 23:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1154 days ago on 21 September 2021) Avilich (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1151 days ago on 24 September 2021) Discussion went stale for a week. May need uninvolved editor to close this please. --George Ho (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Insufficient discussion for consensus determination at this point. Instead, I have WP:BOLDLY turned James Morton (baker) into a redirect; content may be merged from the article history. This may be freely reverted by anyone. If it is not reverted, I would view that as implicit consensus in favour of redirecting/merging. If it is reverted, perhaps that will lead to further discussion such that a clearer consensus emerges. TompaDompa (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1386 days ago on 1 February 2021) This has considerable discussion in detail, but got archived before closure. If someone could look it over, that would be most welcomed - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1158 days ago on 17 September 2021) It has been going on while but we need an outside to dedcide what the close decision should be, and close it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1153 days ago on 22 September 2021) The RFC template has expired. We are ready for closure. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Close}} Alerting @GoodDay: Closed by: Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Pyrrho the Skeptic: I suspect, some may challenge your decision. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1150 days ago on 25 September 2021) Uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I think this should probably go the full 30 days. This isn't a WP:SNOW situation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1150 days ago on 25 September 2021) Looks like we have a clear consensus here, after more than 3 weeks of wrangling over the issue. The discussion has slowed to a crawl, and I don't expect any further meaningful input at this point. Since all of the parties interested appear to be involved, I'm requesting that an uninvolved experienced editor close this discussion, per an off-wiki request. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Close}} Alerting @HurricaneResearch: Closed by: Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1153 days ago on 22 September 2021) Discussion appears to have petered out a few weeks ago. I'd like to request an uninvolved admin closure for this given its possible controversial nature. If it seems like relisting and continuing to discuss would be better, that's fine too, this is just an old CfD page now that no one's looked at in a couple of weeks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1130 days ago on 15 October 2021) Following the discussion editors reached a unanimous conclusion of keep. Please close the deletion notice. Thank you. --ArchaeoPhys (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ArchaeoPhys: Is there any reason why this can't proceed through the normal AfD process? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: To the best of my understanding we did proceed through the normal AfD process. The conclusion of keep was unanimous. It has been more than a week since the discussion started. The user who started the discussion, GizzyCatBella, suggested that I ask here to speed up the closure because someone else needs to close it (if I understood correctly). I spent a lot of time on the article and we all think it's good, so I would just like to conclude the matter. --ArchaeoPhys (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1147 days ago on 28 September 2021) Since the day it was first offered, discussion on this topic appears to have stopped, with no involvement from any other editor. 143.189.187.173 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1138 days ago on 7 October 2021) The discussion has come to a halt so I think it's time for it be closed. So if an uninvolved editor could proceed with the closure I'd really appreciate it. Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Notify Btspurplegalaxy. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1148 days ago on 27 September 2021) Fair warning to potential closers: this is a long discussion, and there is at least one participant who feels closure at this point would be inappropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1145 days ago on 30 September 2021) A controversial place-renaming discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Notify 力 (power~enwiki). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 03:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1166 days ago on 10 September 2021) Expired CENT-listed RfC. Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus here? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1185 days ago on 22 August 2021) Editors (including me) are not agreeing on what the consensus was; an uninvolved closure of this by an experienced editor/admin might be helpful in ascertaining a consensus or lack thereof. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1127 days ago on 18 October 2021) Been open for more than a week, with no comments in six days. Consensus seems pretty clear but needs a formal close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1148 days ago on 27 September 2021) We need closure & a ruling, now that it's been a month & the template has expired. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by DrKay. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1145 days ago on 30 September 2021) Merge proposal was initiated a month ago, and there appears to be consensus in one direction. A formal close by an uninvolved editor to settle it would be ideal. Haleth (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1128 days ago on 17 October 2021) MR opened a week ago but today there was an attempted closure by closer who was involved in several other disputes between me and other participants just prior to the Move Request and the RM closure wasn't done following Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the weight of arguments versus number of votes. Applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions were also ignored. The RM would benefit from an administratrive closure instead. Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 20:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} - relisted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
(Continuation from above). RM was relisted by ProcrastinatingReader so that the editors are given some more time to reach a wp:consensus before RM closure. The wp:consensus has finally been reached, in favor of the applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions, and is awaiting closure. Thank you. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Please note that this discussion was closed before as no consensus but with claims of a conflict with someone else in that discussion, the closure was revert with an editwar. The Banner talk 08:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I shall note that the first Closer, Buidhe, had some sort of a WP:Conflict of Interest since they were involved in two disputes elsewhere, (against the RM's initiator and 2 more RM participants). In response to this, I sought Admin attention, and Administrator Drmies understood our concerns on the matter, and suggested that someone else, more uninvolved and impartial, closes the RM instead: User talk:Drmies#Edit warring over RM closure. I followed Admin EdJohnston's advice and submitted a Request for Closure User talk:EdJohnston#Draw broader attention to a move request (that's the first closure request, above), to which ProcrastinatingReader responded by volunteering as our new Closer. ProcrastinatingReader, upon reviewing the RM, decided to re-list it so that some more room is given to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. Once a consensus was achieved about which name is more commonly used of the two, I came here again where I re-submitted the Request for Closure. The RM would benefit greatly from a closure that evaluates the arguments of the participants, appliance with Wikipedia's naming rules and guidelines, the consensus, and anything else the Closer may find interesting, such as the usual WP:BALKANS canvassing accusations. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Relisted again. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 17:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1233 days ago on 4 July 2021) Discussion went stale since few months ago, need a closure and a ruling from an uninvolved editor. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed as no consensus. FOARP (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1148 days ago on 27 September 2021) This RFC fits WP:WHENCLOSE to a T; we've hit 30 days, new contributors have slowed right down and the same participants are circling the issue. There has been a rough 2:1 consensus for a while now, but I am neither uninvolved nor unbiased and this RFC is contentious enough within the NZ wikiproject that it needs a formal close. — HTGS (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Close}} Closed by: Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1270 days ago on 29 May 2021) Requesting that a sysop close this one, as it's not purely a content matter. There may be a need to provide support and direction to one of the participants.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Recuse - because I've been involved from the start. But I'd like to mention that Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service#Too large (which predates it) is related and is also dragging on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- @S Marshall and Redrose64: Closing the discussion didn't require any admin action (and was rather straightforward, and the request should have been posted here long ago...), so I've done it. If you feel aggravated enough about the BLUDGEON/DEADHORSE, you can contact an uninvolved admin (Drmies? Any interest in resurrecting ANI 2.0 on your talk?); or you can post at the usual venue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
{{done}}
(Initiated 1152 days ago on 23 September 2021) RfC has been open for nearly six weeks, with no additional contributions since Oct 12th. Would appreciate a uninvolved editor close, as I created the RfC and have clearly been involved in the debate. That said, support looks to be more than 2:1 in favor of option 2, rather than leaving the infobox blank. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Close}} Closed by Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1121 days ago on 24 October 2021) Appears to be a WP:SNOW close. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1124 days ago on 21 October 2021) Only one long-standing dissent from majority opinion (his ideology should be described as "far right"). I previously closed this seeing there was clear consensus but JBchrch was nice enough to point me to the right place to request a closure seeing how I was involved in the discussion (i thought 3 days without comments was enough to close when clear consensus). --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Request for closure contested here, [1], and further here, in the context §: [2].--Emigré55 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Emigré55 you are the only non-IP editor contesting the characterization of far-right, and the last edit before I made this request to the discussion had been 3 days prior. This closure request is just to get a non-involved editor to judge if the discussion merits closure or not.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk
- Request for closure contested here, [1], and further here, in the context §: [2].--Emigré55 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1342 days ago on 17 March 2021) This has been dragging on for a long time and needs a formal close by an uninvolved editor given the topic area. --Griboski (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1121 days ago on 25 October 2021) I believe the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Add_convention_of_capitalizing_Go has reached a rough consensus, I'd like like to make the suggested revision. I'm requesting an uninvolved editor close the discussion. Coastside (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1142 days ago on 3 October 2021) Thank you. 219.76.24.212 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) – Also requested by Matthew hk (talk) at 01:34 on 4 November 2021 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 06:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1131 days ago on 14 October 2021) a long list of backlogged move requests (currently numbering 89 25 22) needs the attention of experienced rm closers, please. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 23:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Huh, there are over 60 in the backlog. I've been staring at that list so long it didn't seem like quite so many. There are only a handful that look blatantly unpleasant to close. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1155 days ago on 20 September 2021) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1120 days ago on 25 October 2021) Clear consensus and there hasn't been new comments for several days now. I would like a formal close by a uninvolved user. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1131 days ago on 15 October 2021) Looks like there is consensus maybe forming. Admin intervention would be extremely helpful here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} @MJL: According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Yoruba disruption (still), the discussion was closed by Drmies a few days ago. I'm not actually the closer here. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 16:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1189 days ago on 17 August 2021) Looks like there is no consensus here, discounting canvassing? — DaxServer (talk to me) 08:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- @DaxServer: {{Done}} Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 18:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 3 September 2021) The RfC discusses the placement of certain templates within MOS:ORDER that are currently missing from that guideline. There is a clear consensus that the templates should be listed, so the position is the only open question. A closure of this RfC should result in the addition of said templates. IceWelder [✉] 09:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1146 days ago on 29 September 2021) This RfC seems to have ended (discussion has ceased) and the weight of consensus seems to be clear, but there are a few notable dissenters. This seems to be a somewhat controversial topic. Could a non-involved editor review the arguments and make sure consensus is clear before formally closing? Fieari (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Moved to the correct location in the list (for future reference Fieari, articles are sorted by RfC opening date, not closure request date). Closer should be aware that there was a large amount of sock/meatpuppetry in that discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... and will keep an eye out for SPI issues. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1120 days ago on 25 October 2021) Appears to have reached consensus. ––Formal 
talk 09:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- @FormalDude: {{done}} Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 18:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1139 days ago on 6 October 2021) Last !vote was on October 25. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @Firefangledfeathers: Just pinging to let you know that I've performed this close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1213 days ago on 24 July 2021) A relatively straightforward close for an uninvolved editor. 92.40.201.36 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Szmenderowiecki Aircorn (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1132 days ago on 13 October 2021) The RFC template has expired & I believe we are ready for a decision. Things have quieted down there (input wise) for over two week or so. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1164 days ago on 11 September 2021) Highly controversial topic, requesting a formal close. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1135 days ago on 10 October 2021) RFC template expired, no discussion for a couple of days, and a formal close would be useful at some stage. Related to the RFC on Talk:Flag of Afghanistan above. Kahastok talk 10:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done|1=Done.}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1131 days ago on 15 October 2021) Large MOS discussion that has been open for a month, and where most of what's going to be said has been said. Should have a close to tie it up in a digestible summary that can be used as precedent if the question comes up in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1135 days ago on 10 October 2021) Discussion has been stale since October 15th. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 3 September 2021) RFC template expired, long ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1114 days ago on 31 October 2021) The RFC has gone stale and the full protection settings for the main article (The Battle at Lake Changjin) expires tomorrow. Administrative closure preferably before the settings are lifted would be most welcome Estnot (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Estnot: {{Not done}} It certainly doesn't look stale to me anymore. Seems like discussion has picked up on a potential compromise, although that was after you posted this closure request. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1194 days ago on 12 August 2021) This RfC ended some time ago, but there's disagreement (here) about the result. We'd specifically like a decision on whether the RfC establishes consensus for the creation of a new guideline along the lines of CaptainEek's proposal. Thanks. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
- Some context: the relevant part isn't the section linked in the heading but this subsection ("CaptainEek's proposal"). It's not a proposal "for the creation of a new guideline" -- that's how DanFromAnotherPlace has interpreted it. Given what seemed like a rough consensus there, combined with what I perceive to be fairly common practice with such sections, I made a change to MOS:POPCULT. That section already had some similar guidance about inclusion/sourcing requirements, etc. stemming from a 2015 RfC. Formal closure is, of course, not required, but I don't object to it either. Just adding context. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} It's been two months since the end of the discussion and a month since this listing at ANRFC. I think the two most reasonable options here are marking this request as not done, leaving the discussion without formal closure, or closing the discussion as no consensus. Either way, the next step for any participants who want more concrete policy changes (besides the edit Rhododentrites already made) would be to start a new discussion. Courtesy pings for DanFromAnotherPlace and Rhododentrites. Firefangledfeathers 21:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why "besides the edit Rhododentrites already made"? That edit was based on the claim that the RfC established a clear consensus. If there's no consensus for the change, shouldn't the guideline revert back to the status quo? Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair question, and I didn't elaborate in the hopes of keeping this discussion brief. The vast, winding RfC is what I think could be reasonably closed as no consensus. CaptainEek's proposal received widespread support. I'd say the most likely outcomes are: clear support without a need for closure, closure of that specific proposal as support, or (a distant third) no consensus for that proposal. Even if we settled on no consensus for that proposal, the local support Rhododendrites edit has received at WT:TRIV would be enough for continued inclusion. I would be happy to discuss more at my user talk. It can stay here too, but it seems like this is rarely the place for lengthy discussion. I'll also say that any experienced closer who wants to take this on should feel free to strike my "not done" and remove the done parameter at the top. Firefangledfeathers 21:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for explaining. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- That's a fair question, and I didn't elaborate in the hopes of keeping this discussion brief. The vast, winding RfC is what I think could be reasonably closed as no consensus. CaptainEek's proposal received widespread support. I'd say the most likely outcomes are: clear support without a need for closure, closure of that specific proposal as support, or (a distant third) no consensus for that proposal. Even if we settled on no consensus for that proposal, the local support Rhododendrites edit has received at WT:TRIV would be enough for continued inclusion. I would be happy to discuss more at my user talk. It can stay here too, but it seems like this is rarely the place for lengthy discussion. I'll also say that any experienced closer who wants to take this on should feel free to strike my "not done" and remove the done parameter at the top. Firefangledfeathers 21:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Why "besides the edit Rhododentrites already made"? That edit was based on the claim that the RfC established a clear consensus. If there's no consensus for the change, shouldn't the guideline revert back to the status quo? Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1142 days ago on 3 October 2021) RFC template expired long ago. A closure of this discussion 'may' stop a continuing dispute at that article. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1135 days ago on 10 October 2021) RFC template expired long ago. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... I will also check this out while I check out the one above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 5 July 2020) Does not need a formal close per se but simply if consensus to merge exists. If so, the merge should occur, but if not, the notification templates on the relevant pages should be removed. Note that the first reply to the discussion is dated 19:21, 6 May 2021, almost a year later. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1148 days ago on 27 September 2021) The RfC template expired and discussion has slowed to a trickle. A good closing statement would help to articulate community consensus (or the lack thereof) in this area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse need for a close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1122 days ago on 23 October 2021) This is a four question RfC with some questions having multiple options. Responses have definitely slowed down and it seems ripe for closure. Firefangledfeathers 18:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... Isabelle 🔔 20:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} I've now closed the RfC, Firefangledfeathers. Isabelle 🔔 20:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1151 days ago on 24 September 2021). -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1108 days ago on 6 November 2021) As of the time of this comment, five out of six editors have !voted to close this discussion. The closure has been undone twice, so an administrator close would be appreciated. ––FormalDude 
talk 03:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I came here to ask for just this, the whole thread is soapboxing with massive assumptions of bad faith that are (in effect) violations of wp:npa. Just the same couple of users telling is how biased we are.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I second Slatersteven's comments. I recommend the closing admin issue a warning or at the very least remind editors what the purpose of article talk pages is. ––FormalDude
talk 11:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- I second Slatersteven's comments. I recommend the closing admin issue a warning or at the very least remind editors what the purpose of article talk pages is. ––FormalDude
- Doing... I'm not a sysop but I would like to give it a shot. If my closure is undone, someone ought to initiate a closure review at WP:AN. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems there are people more interesting in closing this discussion down rather than discussing the issues related to this page. There were some valid points made but plenty engaged in discussions of closure instead of debating the bias in the article. What one editor said couldn't be more true. "Pages like this do suffer from heavy liberal bias. However, any attempts to change this result in reversion and scolding." TheeFactChecker (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- @TheeFactChecker: any valid points should be brought up specifically on the talk page in their own right. This discussion was way too broad and unfocused. ––FormalDude talk 17:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1126 days ago on 19 October 2021) Steward or global renamer needed to complete usurpation of username. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1105 days ago on 9 November 2021) Steward or global renamer needed to complete usurpation of username. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1261 days ago on 6 June 2021) I commented in the discussion so don't feel comfortable closing it. If you need a hand doing anything technical ping me and I can help. Aircorn (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 10:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1108 days ago on 7 November 2021) A proposal to split two subsections of the Stampede article into a separate article titled Crowd crush. It is not obvious to me what the outcome is. Einsof (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... Colonestarrice (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. @Einsof: I've read the discussion multiple times on the WP app and was ready to close it, until I realized that there was another section below continuing the same discussion. As the discussion is ongoing it cannot be closed; you can re-request closure once it has concluded. Colonestarrice (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1093 days ago on 22 November 2021) IMHO, this section should be the only section here WRT changing the article title that should be active. Per WP:MULTI, may we close all other sections on this page related to changing the article title? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by User:No such user. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I thought Jax 0677 wanted to close the Nov 22 (2) move; actually, as of now, everything else has been closed and this is the only active RM. I don't see why it should not run a day or two further. No such user (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- Reply The move discussion should run for one week. All other threads related to title changes should probably be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I thought Jax 0677 wanted to close the Nov 22 (2) move; actually, as of now, everything else has been closed and this is the only active RM. I don't see why it should not run a day or two further. No such user (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1456 days ago on 23 November 2020) Discussion has been open for over a year without ever being closed. Chlod (say hi!) 02:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Doing...
{{Done}}Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1107 days ago on 7 November 2021) please review Talk:Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Splitting_proposal --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Hey @Jax 0677: the discussion appears to be ongoing; please re-request closure once it has concluded. And when posting a request here, don't forget to use the
{{Initiated}}template. Colonestarrice (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - I am on a phone, and the discussion has been going on for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- The last vote before you requested closure (excluding your own vote), was cast just 4 days ago. Closure is commonly requested if a discussion has been idle for weeks or even month, so that interested editors have had a reasonable amount of time to vote or comment; if the discussion had been closed immediately after your request, this vote could not have been cast. Also note, that it is generally inappropriate, to request closure right after having cast a vote yourself, as this can be seen as an attempt at gaming the system. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1089 days ago on 25 November 2021) SNOW close (15-0-0 in terms of option votes), but since I started the RfC don't wish to close it myself. However, closing it would allow us to move to a subsequent point of discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- "
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
", "When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure
". Colonestarrice (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC) - @A. C. Santacruz: meaning you are not only allowed but also encouraged to close it yourself if WP:SNOW applies. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks for the ping Colonestarrice ^u^ Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Marking request as {{Done}}. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Will do, thanks for the ping Colonestarrice ^u^ Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1107 days ago on 7 November 2021) – Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fayat Group, which has been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} – it was relisted thrice for a reason; someone will most likely close it either when there's additional participation or when another seven days elapse (i.e. Dec. 6). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1094 days ago on 21 November 2021) This move request has run its course and should be closed by an uninvolved closer. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Paine Ellsworth for your uninvolved close of this discussion. I am particularly thankful for your diligence in the post-move cleanup phase. Bravo.--John Cline (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's my pleasure! Paine 03:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Paine Ellsworth for your uninvolved close of this discussion. I am particularly thankful for your diligence in the post-move cleanup phase. Bravo.--John Cline (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1226 days ago on 11 July 2021) Has been open for four and a half months, only one comment in the last month. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1178 days ago on 29 August 2021) RFC expired, consensus appears to have been reached, but I am unfamiliar with closing discussion and would prefer a more experienced, un-involved editor. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1160 days ago on 15 September 2021) I think this RFC's official closure, is long over-do. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1138 days ago on 7 October 2021) This RfC relates to how the geographical location of Eritrea should be stated in the intro sentence of the article lede. The issues being discussed were (a) whether Eritrea should be described as being in "Eastern Africa," the "Horn of Africa," or both, and (b) if both, in which order. There were five options in the RfC, and I've summarized the preference of the commenters in the table below. The first column only includes commenters' top choice, while the second shows all supported choices, as many commenters indicated support for more than one option (in the context of "Option X, but failing that, Option Y"). BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
| Option # | Text of Option | Commenters Ranking as Top Choice | Commenters Indicating Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Option 1 | "is a country in Eastern Africa within the Horn of Africa region" | 3 | 4 |
| Option 2 | “is a country in Eastern Africa. It is part of the Horn of Africa region,” | 0 | 1 |
| Option 3 | “is a country in the Horn of Africa region of Eastern Africa,” | 8 | 11 |
| Option 4 | “is a country in Eastern Africa” | 3 | 5 |
| Option 5 | “is a country in the Horn of Africa” | 4 | 6 |
- Doing... Isabelle 🔔 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1112 days ago on 2 November 2021) - The RFC template has expired & discussion petered out, roughly a week ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1082 days ago on 2 December 2021) In my opinion the AE thread has clear consensus. Please close/comment --Shrike (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1520 days ago on 20 September 2020) Significant discussion, but fell off the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers 21:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, while the discussion was never formally closed, an entry was added to WP:RSP on 7 October 2021 by Rosguill (who appears to have been uninvolved) citing the RfC. The entry has remained, substantively unchanged, for over a year now, suggesting at least some amount of silent consensus. I would still be happy to work on a formal closure, if you continue to believe it to be necessary. Firefangledfeathers 21:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Thanks, didn't check that, informal/silent seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Then, {{Already done}}. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers 22:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Thanks, didn't check that, informal/silent seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, while the discussion was never formally closed, an entry was added to WP:RSP on 7 October 2021 by Rosguill (who appears to have been uninvolved) citing the RfC. The entry has remained, substantively unchanged, for over a year now, suggesting at least some amount of silent consensus. I would still be happy to work on a formal closure, if you continue to believe it to be necessary. Firefangledfeathers 21:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:NPOV/N § Opening paragraph of Gary Glitter article, following the initial discussion at Talk:Gary Glitter § Page Emphasis
(Initiated 1084 days ago on 30 November 2021) – This WP:NPOV discussion, after initially being very active, seems to have come to a natural end, as the editors most invested in the issue seem to be in general agreement on the best way to reword things. It would be good to have some kind of formal closure in order to determine matters. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Resolved}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theknightwho (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1107 days ago on 7 November 2021) – Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fayat Group, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1111 days ago on 3 November 2021) - RFC template expired, conversation ended ~two weeks ago. SmolBrane (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1114 days ago on 31 October 2021) – Can an experienced editor please help close this RfC? There is a second (currently closed) RfC below the first one which deals with the same topic so I would suggest reading that too. Banedon (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Mhawk10 It's been several days, is the close happening? Banedon (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- So my laptop broke in the middle of that and I am basically only able to edit on mobile for now, which is severely hampering my ability to actually write a close with sufficient length. Laptop should be fixed tomorrow, so I should be able to get it done then. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Mhawk10 It's been another several days, is the close happening? Banedon (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just got my laptop back tonight (the fix was more complicated than I had initially been told). Close should happen in the next hour. My apologies for the delay. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Mhawk10 It's been another several days, is the close happening? Banedon (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- So my laptop broke in the middle of that and I am basically only able to edit on mobile for now, which is severely hampering my ability to actually write a close with sufficient length. Laptop should be fixed tomorrow, so I should be able to get it done then. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Mhawk10 It's been several days, is the close happening? Banedon (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1120 days ago on 26 October 2021) This WP:CENT-listed discussion has not received any additional !vote since 20 November. Given the scope of the proposal, a formal closure is warranted. Thanks. JBchrch talk 20:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, this could definitely be wrapped up. I'd appreciate if the closer could include in their close an assessment of consensus around moving the "all portals" link to the "Other areas of Wikipedia" section, as that was raised early on and received significant comment. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Done}} -The Gnome (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1112 days ago on 2 November 2021) - The RFC template has expired, after one month & discussion petered out, about two weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please somebody make it stop. —valereee (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1079 days ago on 5 December 2021) – Withdrawn by nominator. Snow keep. -- Valjean (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1114 days ago on 31 October 2021) - RFC template has expired. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping to GoodDay and Trillfendi. Isabelle 🔔 15:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1083 days ago on 1 December 2021) – Ten days old, not formally relisted, a lot of text but the only bolded "keep" !vote was changed to a WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1128 days ago on 17 October 2021) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at this expired RfC? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1097 days ago on 17 November 2021) Both the survey and discussion have received a good amount of engagement. ––FormalDude 
talk 05:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1104 days ago on 10 November 2021) I don't want to close this as the originator. Could someone please summarize consensus and close out the discussion? It has been more than a month, and conversation has long since petered out. Thanks! AlexEng(TALK) 23:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
2 remaining September CFDs
(Initiated 1162 days ago on 13 September 2021)
There are two remaining CFDs from September that have yet to be closed, because most of the people who regularly close CFDs are involved in the discussions. They are:
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_10#Category:Male_superheroes
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_22#Category:Gongsun_Du_and_associates
Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1107 days ago on 7 November 2021) – Please review Talk:Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Splitting_proposal, which has been listed for almost one month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1092 days ago on 22 November 2021)
- (not using an RfC template, but content-wise this is one. Feel free to move to "other" section if necessary)
Currently a 7:1 consensus, but implementation objected to. Someone uninvolved please close formally. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- An oddly worded request for an obvious non-RfC standard page discussion (I asked for the close but couldn't figure out the coding), as there is no RfC and no consensus, just editors who think closing means counting hands. Several editors brought up forms of "I don't like it" objections and I've refuted those one by one and several times over. Closer, please carefully read the entire discussion, starting with the biased section title (one reason it's not an RfC) to study and understand the arguments and answers. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 08:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- An oddly worded request for an obvious non-RfC standard page discussion (I asked for the close but couldn't figure out the coding), as there is no RfC and no consensus, just editors who think closing means counting hands. Several editors brought up forms of "I don't like it" objections and I've refuted those one by one and several times over. Closer, please carefully read the entire discussion, starting with the biased section title (one reason it's not an RfC) to study and understand the arguments and answers. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1148 days ago on 27 September 2021) ANI thread that has been open for a while. Discussion has stalled recently but consensus is not obvious, so it would benefit from an administrative close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: it's now been 70 days since the thread was opened, and about 50 days since you posted this request for closure. I am interpreting the protracted silence as a sign that there is no admin interest in taking action. At this point—and I'll be clear that this speculation on my part—I think any admin would have to question whether action taken on such an old report would be construed as punishment rather than prevention. Would you consider removing this request? Firefangledfeathers 21:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers, thanks for the follow-up. I think the lack of action indicates a failure of process here and at ANI. This noticeboard is the appropriate place to go to seek administrative action on time-sensitive issues, the discussion was brought here, yet there has been no action. Individually, there's no one to blame, since closing ANI threads is obviously not a fun task and no one editor has an obligation to take it on. But collectively, we have a severe problem when an editor (FormalDude in this case) can decide that a problem is bad enough that they're willing to expend the (often considerable) effort and emotional labor to file an ANI report and argue to find consensus on a sanction, but the consensus is never actioned because the thread is never closed. At this point, it's a lose-lose situation—I agree with you that taking any action at this point risks going against WP:DEADHORSE, but not doing so gives the reported editor the impression that they can continue to step up to or across the line without penalty. If an admin decides that the only thing to do at this point is to archive this CR, I'd view that as very reasonable, but I'd like them to make the call. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdkb: I understand your frustration. I skimmed the discussion and just based on what's there I don't see consensus for any kind of action. At this late point in time, I also doubt that anything good would come from dredging this up again. If there have been issues since this discussion, I would recommend filing a new ANI report or raise the issue individually with an administrator. I think that would be more productive than trying to make something out of this old report. {{not done}} — Wug·a·po·des 04:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers, thanks for the follow-up. I think the lack of action indicates a failure of process here and at ANI. This noticeboard is the appropriate place to go to seek administrative action on time-sensitive issues, the discussion was brought here, yet there has been no action. Individually, there's no one to blame, since closing ANI threads is obviously not a fun task and no one editor has an obligation to take it on. But collectively, we have a severe problem when an editor (FormalDude in this case) can decide that a problem is bad enough that they're willing to expend the (often considerable) effort and emotional labor to file an ANI report and argue to find consensus on a sanction, but the consensus is never actioned because the thread is never closed. At this point, it's a lose-lose situation—I agree with you that taking any action at this point risks going against WP:DEADHORSE, but not doing so gives the reported editor the impression that they can continue to step up to or across the line without penalty. If an admin decides that the only thing to do at this point is to archive this CR, I'd view that as very reasonable, but I'd like them to make the call. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1079 days ago on 5 December 2021) This already has a near-unanimous result. Relevant wikiprojects have been notified, but no further commentary appears to be incoming. The lone hold-out appears unwilling to accept the obvious consensus, so an admin close would be best, simple as the matter may be. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1781 days ago on 3 January 2020) Could an uninvolved editor please assess for a consensus at Talk:Backpacker murders#Possibly forward Backpacker murders for a merge between Backpacker murders and Ivan Milat. Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1082 days ago on 2 December 2021) - Hi, can an uninvolved admin evaluate and close the discussion currently being held at Talk:Oxford High School shooting#Names_of_victims? We're looking to close it by December 16th at the earliest, with the qualification that if there appears to be constructive discussion still ongoing, the closure can be delayed to allow that to play out. Asking now so if an uninvolved admin wishes to get started reading the lengthy discussion they can get a headstart. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close this. — Wug·a·po·des 20:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1486 days ago on 24 October 2020) Could someone close this? It's been open for a while with no discussion. Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- I will close this. Jehochman Talk 21:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
{{done}}
(Initiated 1106 days ago on 8 November 2021) - The RFC template expired a few days ago & it's been roughly a month since the last input. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused. Why does this need closing when it's so clear and uncontroversial?—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Eh, whether it really needs a formal close or not, may as well. And actually, I see some comments that remind me that these are not votes, so perhaps an outside look is a good idea anyway. Gimme a sec... Fieari (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@GoodDay: {{Done}}. Fieari (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1083 days ago on 1 December 2021) Discussion appears to have reached a consensus. ––FormalDude talk 05:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC) {{done}} by Euryalus.
(Initiated 1073 days ago on 11 December 2021) Dancing through the snow... — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1206 days ago on 31 July 2021) Long expired RfC without a close. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} by Jehochman Talk 21:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1172 days ago on 3 September 2021) RFC template expired, long ago. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1112 days ago on 2 November 2021) The RfC is overdue and is awaiting result assessment, so we can decide what to do next on that basis. Brandmeistertalk 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} by Jehochman Talk 21:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1096 days ago on 18 November 2021) This discussion went on for 30 days. Will an administrator please close the RFC and make the appropriate change to the notability guideline for future films? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} by Jehochman Talk 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1128 days ago on 17 October 2021) – This thread is over 2 months old. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1088 days ago on 27 November 2021) A spillover from an original RfC that concerns the question whether said users had any business removing a specific article, where Icewhiz's narrative is presented, among others. The discussion was preemptively closed by Hemiauchenia because it became too heated. An administrative close would be welcome. (The same concerns the two other discussions, the original one and a related RfC about the same content). It would be best to have a separate editor to close each of these discussions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hadn't noticed this request earlier, and posted my own under "other types of closing requests". Now that my attention has be called to this one, I'm adding the text of my request below for reference. François Robere (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Standard COIN discussion that deteriorated quickly into PAs. The closure by an involved editor was challenged,[3][4] and they expressed no objection to posting here. Given the substance question of the discussion, the fact that it spans several articles in a problematic TA, and the intensity and frequency of PAs, I believe a proper admin closure (perhaps by a panel of admins) is warranted. With thanks. François Robere (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Szmenderowiecki: This is actually the fourth discussion on that matter in the last four months, the first (?) being this. François Robere (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have referred this mess to arbitration. If four discussions can't get to the bottom of it, it's time for the Committee to have a look. Jehochman Talk 14:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ill close it. nableezy - 05:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC) {{done}} nableezy - 05:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1109 days ago on 5 November 2021) - Long overdo closure required for this 'heated' Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please take into account the suggestions presented in the statements made by editors about the preferred closure mode in the arbitration case on the topic, and the recently closed COI thread's result. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... Having read everything, I've started drafting a closing statement, and will be posting soon, but will refrain from doing so if users find I'm unsuitable for such a close. Isabelle 🔔 16:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's kind of you to volunteer and I don't see why anyone would object. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jehochman. I admit I'm an unexperienced user when it comes to closing discussions, so I saw the need the be somewhat careful here, considering how contentious this topic is. It's been closed now. Courtesy ping to GoodDay and Szmenderowiecki. Isabelle 🔔 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Everyone learns. Thank you for your work. I don't know how you closed it yet, but whichever the result, I feel like you did your best because you show a lot of self-awareness and care. Jehochman Talk 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thou are brave. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jehochman. I admit I'm an unexperienced user when it comes to closing discussions, so I saw the need the be somewhat careful here, considering how contentious this topic is. It's been closed now. Courtesy ping to GoodDay and Szmenderowiecki. Isabelle 🔔 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's kind of you to volunteer and I don't see why anyone would object. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1106 days ago on 8 November 2021) This RSN discussion has been archived without being closed. Due to the high impact of the source this deserves a formal close. FOARP (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. Personally, I don't see that as closable, because the apparent consensus would lead to wide-ranging and impactful changes, and I don't think that discussion has sufficient participation to enact changes of that magnitude. Another closer might differ from me.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- S Marshall - Didn't the same thing happen recently with GNIS, which is equally as prominent a source? Or if more participation is needed, then a re-list for another seven days might be a good idea? FOARP (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe advertise it on WP:CENT?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- For that it needs relisting (EDIT: to be clear, I have no idea to how to do this other than by cutting/pasting, which is normally a no-no in most of Wiki's systems). Either that or start a new one? But that seems likely to draw objections for having a new discussion so soon after the last one. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe advertise it on WP:CENT?—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- S Marshall - Didn't the same thing happen recently with GNIS, which is equally as prominent a source? Or if more participation is needed, then a re-list for another seven days might be a good idea? FOARP (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'd agree with S Marshall that it should be CENT advertised for some period of time, perhaps also a note at WP:VPP. (noting, for the record, it was already advertised to Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)). "Some period of time" is undefined but if participation doesn't increase substantially I'd say one month, after which I'd say it's safe to say every reasonable effort was made to increase participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: The discussion has been relisted and removed from archive. It can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GEOnet Names Server (GNS). Isabelle 🔔 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I fixed the heading to reflect this. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1075 days ago on 9 December 2021) This is one part of a multi-part RfC, and I'm only requesting closure of this part (question 2). It has a rather obvious result, with a 14–1 tally of !votes. It's becoming a pile-on, and more comments probably won't change anything. I'd close it myself, but I opened the RfC and commented in it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Should this Requested move be opened while a move review is actually taking place? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Request withdrawn by nominator. ––FormalDude 
talk 02:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1082 days ago on 2 December 2021) This RfC is not going anywhere; no new editors are joining in and no one is convincing anyone to "change sides", and has devolved into reiterating the same arguments over and over and questioning the competence and good faith of the opposing side. Just counting the votes it is pretty clearly a no consensus result but I'm requesting closure because as I understand it discussions are not determined only by votes (so an uninvolved and experienced editor reading through would be good) and since in this case the RfC is on whether a table that was removed six months ago should be added back a closer is also needed to determine what the status quo to be maintained actually is in the case of no consensus. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1066 days ago on 18 December 2021) – Can someone close the requested move as no one has objected and I believe I gave some strong arguments ? Thanks. My final opinion goes toward "HDR capture from multiple exposures". SH4ever (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm only asking the closer to reject the current title, as there might be some good arguments for multiple options. (WP:OTHEROPTIONS). SH4ever (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1120 days ago on 25 October 2021) - could an independent, experienced editor close this? Thank you. --Mvbaron (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Mvbaron: {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1120 days ago on 25 October 2021) - could an independent, experienced editor close this? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- You beat me to it by five minutes. Was gonna make the same request. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: - did I only beat you because I restored the talk page section? starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reckon so. I had forgotten about the RFC, until then. The talkpage at Trump is so darn active. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: - did I only beat you because I restored the talk page section? starship.paint (exalt) 14:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint and GoodDay: {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1085 days ago on 29 November 2021) - The RfC tag as expired after a month. May we have a decision. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 21:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1085 days ago on 29 November 2021) – Title of this section was Please see also the closure request for Talk:Waukesha parade attack#Move from Waukesha Christmas parade attack, which began a little earlier. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC) 15:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth, the initial discussion subject to the move review has been archived here and the link you have given to the TP is to a subsequent discussion. A close is requested for the move review. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- To editor Cinderella157: yes thank you, that is correct. It was that subsequent discussion that was originally brought here to WP:CR to be closed (and is now listed separately above).
The collapsed discussion below hopefully explains what inspired the header change of this section from the subsequent discussion to the move review.P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 05:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} by Aervanath. – P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1088 days ago on 26 November 2021) This discussion is going on one week, and I wanted to bring up a suggestion that has been made on the talk page: a panel of administrator closers. This is a high profile, long, and complex RfC, and I think it justifies multiple administrators evaluating it for closure. ––FormalDude talk 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is a consensus to wait for 30 days to expire. At that point we can see the status of the discussion. I am willing to serve as a closer and would not mind having a couple colleagues join in the process to ensure a thorough and fair result. Jehochman Talk 21:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- When it's time for the closure of this RfC I'd second this and also suggest that if not an administrative close, it certainly needs the hand of more than one experience closer. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the need for multiple editors when closing this one, and apologize to the health and time of those that take up the task as starter of the RfC as I did not expect it to be such a complex question. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just don't close, until after the RFC-template expires. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think we'll need to necessarily wait thirty days. Time will tell though. Greatly appreciate any admins willing to volunteer to join a panel of closers for this. ––FormalDude talk 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW @FormalDude:, this closure request is in the wrong place. We're posting about an RFC, not WP:AN discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW @FormalDude:, this closure request is in the wrong place. We're posting about an RFC, not WP:AN discussion. GoodDay (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also supporting a panel of three for this Rfc, which is likely to have a lasting influence well beyond this one article. I'd prefer at least one or two admins, but if it makes it any easier, I'd welcome very experienced non-admin closers who have deep command of policies and guidelines, and have demonstrated neutrality in controversial issues before, among the group of three. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Let it stay up for potentially more input; let's say 30 days. Also, I strongly support a panel of at least three closers, the majority of whom should be administrators, and all of whom should be both experienced and relatively uninvolved in such issues. As wrote, this is likely to have influence beyond the specific article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- If a singular, uninvolved, and experienced non-admin wants to close, then they are fully within the rights, and I would support their decision to do so; we should not be dictating the requirements for a closer beyond what is required by policy, particularly for an RfC which will have limited impact despite the unusually high level of attention it is receiving. BilledMammal (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- At a skim I'm not sure its implications are actually that global. If I were closing it I'd go for a narrow closure applicable only to this specific article, as the question (and comments) are also specific to this article and its subject, and hence the RfC result is not necessarily applicable to a different BLP. I'm sure its result may be invoked as precedent in future cases where a BLP subject has a similar background/context to JKR, but editors would still have to consider the context to decide whether the result even applies in the first place; for example, DUEness (a popular argument in that RfC) varies depending on the specific case, what's DUE in one article may not be in another (and vice versa). Probably not going to close it myself, in deference to the number of editors who have requested that it be a panel, although I don't really see the case for a panel closure here. Agree the full 30 day period should run, regardless. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the case for a panel is (1) to lend legitimacy to the close of an unusually contentious discussion and (2) to ensure that the weight given to various factors (e.g., number of !votes, policy-based arguments, and sources) reflects community consensus rather than one admin's opinion. That weight aspect might have some relevance outside the particular article, though I don't deem it likely for the close to articulate principles that could be applied directly in other instances. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm generally wary about having panel closes becoming too prevalent. There are definitely times when they're useful (I'd say DM1 and DM2 are good examples), but most decisions (including very influential ones) have been made by consensus and closed by single editors (or sometimes even no editor; a lot of PAGs never formally went through "RfC" and closure). Panel closes are not only more logistically difficult and thus delay discussion closure, but also kinda move away from the general precedent. I agree with the general concern that a close should reflect community consensus and not an individual closers' opinion, but I think this applies to all closes, and in general we usually do get it right (experienced editors have a good idea for which discussions they have an opinion about or are unsuitable closers for, and hence don't close them; and WP:AN reviews the exceptions) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- My sense is that this would be very likely to head to AN if given an "average" Admin close, but can't see that happening if a panel does the job. That would be my pragmatic argument for a panel: heading off some of the most likely outcomes that would be negative for the community. On the other hand, I don't see any negatives that would accrue from the slower resolution inherent in a panel. Newimpartial (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- In solid agreement with Newimpartial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm generally wary about having panel closes becoming too prevalent. There are definitely times when they're useful (I'd say DM1 and DM2 are good examples), but most decisions (including very influential ones) have been made by consensus and closed by single editors (or sometimes even no editor; a lot of PAGs never formally went through "RfC" and closure). Panel closes are not only more logistically difficult and thus delay discussion closure, but also kinda move away from the general precedent. I agree with the general concern that a close should reflect community consensus and not an individual closers' opinion, but I think this applies to all closes, and in general we usually do get it right (experienced editors have a good idea for which discussions they have an opinion about or are unsuitable closers for, and hence don't close them; and WP:AN reviews the exceptions) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- I think the case for a panel is (1) to lend legitimacy to the close of an unusually contentious discussion and (2) to ensure that the weight given to various factors (e.g., number of !votes, policy-based arguments, and sources) reflects community consensus rather than one admin's opinion. That weight aspect might have some relevance outside the particular article, though I don't deem it likely for the close to articulate principles that could be applied directly in other instances. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- When the RFC template expires (i.e. removed by legobot), a single editor (preferable an administrator) can close the RFC. So far, a panel isn't mandatory. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- A number of editors, some of whom have participated in that RfC, have submitted a solid reasoning for asking for more than one editor to close it down. To treat this as a "routine" RfC would be wrong, especially having in mind the many contentious arguments in Wikipedia about subjects related to the rights of trans persons. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- But if a single editor were to close the RfC, especially an inexperienced one, just imagine the potential for future dwama!!! Oh my! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- There does seem to be a consensus of editors wishing for a panel closure. Unilateral closure is clearly inadvisable. When 30 days passes, I think a notification should be made to WP:AN to request volunteers for said panel (it's a better venue than here for that purpose). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- A number of editors, some of whom have participated in that RfC, have submitted a solid reasoning for asking for more than one editor to close it down. To treat this as a "routine" RfC would be wrong, especially having in mind the many contentious arguments in Wikipedia about subjects related to the rights of trans persons. -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support request for closure for a majority-admin and fully experienced panel of three, after a minimum of 30 days has passed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- I just hope however it's closed, there'll be no protesting over the result. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's why to wait the full 30 days and use a panel of closers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yikes that's big. It should run the full 30 days to ensure no one complains about process. I agree with PR above about panel closures, so I would recommend this just be closed by a single person. It's a big discussion but nothing that a single person can't handle. Panels are usually a waste of time except in cases like WP:RFA2021 or WP:AHRFC where there are multiple proposals that can be split between closers before coming back to summarize the whole thing. Forcing two or three people to read the whole thing just isn't a good use of time; better to just handle problems at AN (or the new WP:XRV) in the unlikely event the closer you find does a bad job. — Wug·a·po·des 04:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Wugapodes on all of those counts, and, we don't want discussion participants specifying how the close will be made. Closing that looks like a bitter, tedious chore with a near-certainty of drama directed at you whatever the outcome and I would anticipate a lack of volunteers to do it.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Closing time
The moment has arrived, the RFC tag has expired. May we have a decision on the RFC in question. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted at WP:AN ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- So far, the close has gone precisely as well as I expected of a non-panel close. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1087 days ago on 27 November 2021) - The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Armbrust. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1158 days ago on 17 September 2021) Requesting close by admin or experienced editor as this was a poorly formulated RfC that may need a close by someone with an understand of the nuances involved. LondonIP (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @LondonIP: Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1097 days ago on 17 November 2021) Discussion has died down but proponent seems not yet ready to give up the ghost. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1071 days ago on 13 December 2021) Close requested. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Dicklyon: Doing... Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}on reply) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1086 days ago on 28 November 2021) – Please review --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone considering closing this should consider, or at least be aware of, Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_November#Waukesha_parade_attack. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- In addition to running concurrent with the MR above, this was not a validly formatted RM or RfC (not tagged) and thus should not be closed IMO. Levivich 19:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - We can wait until one week after the Move Review was started, but this discussion can be closed after that, as it discusses the article title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- The linked talk page discussion isn't tagged so it can't result in consensus to move. It needs to be run as a proper RM and advertised as such for a week, then it can be closed. Levivich 23:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - Fair enough, then we can close the move request tomorrow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- It needs to be tagged for a week. That means listed on the RM list and a template on the article page. You know, standard WP:RM procedure. So this talk page discussion is a pre-RM discussion and doesn't need closure. What needs to happen is for the pending move review to close, and then, if applicable, a new RM. I believe this page has never had an actual full RM; all attempted RMs have been interrupted by page moves during the RM. There should be one, full, proper, uninterrupted RM... followed by a moratorium for a reasonable period (months). IMO :-) Levivich 00:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - I could not agree with you more. Sorry that I erred, I meant to say move review, not move request. Tomorrow will be one week since the move review was started, at which time, the move review can be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry too, I think I misread your earlier comments. Glad we're on the same page :-) Levivich 01:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - I could not agree with you more. Sorry that I erred, I meant to say move review, not move request. Tomorrow will be one week since the move review was started, at which time, the move review can be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- It needs to be tagged for a week. That means listed on the RM list and a template on the article page. You know, standard WP:RM procedure. So this talk page discussion is a pre-RM discussion and doesn't need closure. What needs to happen is for the pending move review to close, and then, if applicable, a new RM. I believe this page has never had an actual full RM; all attempted RMs have been interrupted by page moves during the RM. There should be one, full, proper, uninterrupted RM... followed by a moratorium for a reasonable period (months). IMO :-) Levivich 00:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - Fair enough, then we can close the move request tomorrow. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- The linked talk page discussion isn't tagged so it can't result in consensus to move. It needs to be run as a proper RM and advertised as such for a week, then it can be closed. Levivich 23:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - We can wait until one week after the Move Review was started, but this discussion can be closed after that, as it discusses the article title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
- To avoid inconsistent results, and to avoid further wastage of time and effort, please close Talk:Waukesha_parade_attack#Move_from_Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack first, and depending on how that goes, Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 November#Waukesha parade attack may be rendered moot. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest the closing admin read both discussions and form their own view as to the order in which they should be closed. Havelock Jones (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I second Jones' request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- We’re not voting here. This is the third parallel discussion you’ve instigated. The discussions should be closed in order oldest first. Jehochman Talk 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - I started the move review to provide official visibility to the discussions, and submitted a request here to provide official closure. I would be more than happy to see this discussion and the others ended sooner rather than later. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Rreagan007. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1065 days ago on 19 December 2021) This has gone on for an entire week and no new vote was issued, can an uninvolved editor close the RfC and give an answer to know what to do with the article going forward? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This RfC was started only two weeks ago, and there have been new !votes as recently as Dec. 30. It would probably be best to wait a bit longer before closing (e.g. the usual period of 30 days). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – !votes are still coming in. Feel free to make another request once the RfC is stale. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1080 days ago on 4 December 2021) - could an uninvolved editor close this please? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1085 days ago on 29 November 2021) The RFC tag expired quite some time ago. The RFC needs closure. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Close}} as no consensus @GoodDay:. --RaiderAspect (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1082 days ago on 2 December 2021) RFC tag expired weeks ago & a closing is required. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1054 days ago on 30 December 2021) - we're about one day off from auto-archival at this time of posting. Of the two (EDIT: one) remaining prior participants who have not commented, Ravenswing has indicated they are neutral on this proposal, so will not comment talk:Ravenswing#Notify, while while RaiderAspect is a sporadic editor [5] and may not comment in time. (EDIT: RaiderAspect commented) starship.paint (exalt) 08:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The main thread's now the oldest on WP:ANI. Anyone? starship.paint (exalt) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Floquenbeam. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1095 days ago on 19 November 2021) RfC is well past the usual period of 30 days, and the RfC tag has expired. Discussion hasn't seen any activity since December 10. Could an uninvolved editor close this, please? Thank you! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1114 days ago on 31 October 2021) RfC has not received participation since December 29, and the comment before that was made on November 3. No consensus is discernible, but most users seem to agree that the RfC is malformed, and some have claimed that it is also incoherent and non-neutral. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1093 days ago on 21 November 2021) RFC tag has expired. Requesting a close. Platonk (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The RfC thread seems to have been archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362. I'm not sure what to do about that. This RfC was only a two day discussion and probably a simple close. Platonk (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- The archive has been included in the header link. Hope this helps. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Closing. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Closed. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not being archived - ClueBot III has ignored it twice: therefore, {{already done}} by Tol (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hm; I thought the User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow transclusion would work. Apparently not. Thanks, @Redrose64. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- This is not being archived - ClueBot III has ignored it twice: therefore, {{already done}} by Tol (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1072 days ago on 12 December 2021) The RfC tag has expired. Skyerise (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Isabelle 🔔 15:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtesy ping to Skyerise. Isabelle 🔔 17:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1054 days ago on 30 December 2021) Would be grateful if an uninvolved member closes this move request, there appears to be a a good consensus. Thanks. --Armatura (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}} – it was relisted on 8 Jan., which means it'll show up in the closure queue soon. While we can close relisted RMs at any time, I'm not inclined to do that here: the consensus isn't as clear as it looks, and !votes are still coming in. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1072 days ago on 12 December 2021) The RFC tag has expired & we need closure. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Courtesy ping to GoodDay. Isabelle 🔔 14:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1044 days ago on 9 January 2022) I was also advised to ask for closure and I realised that the RfC was not clear enough. --Checco (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1042 days ago on 11 January 2022) I have been asked to close the request early, I accept since I have already had some interesting answers to my request and there is no longer a need to keep this RFC open.. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} Courtsey ping to Checco and Scia Della Cometa. Formally closed per request, though be mindful that a withdrawn RfC can be closed by the opener if they so desire. Isabelle 🔔 16:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1142 days ago on 3 October 2021) Merge discussion that needs closing by an uninvolved user.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1079 days ago on 5 December 2021) This discussion would not be harmed by a close from an uninvolved editor... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1086 days ago on 28 November 2021) Discussion has ended and the RfC needs closure. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by ProcrastinatingReader. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1067 days ago on 17 December 2021) Expired RfC needing an uninvolved close. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1082 days ago on 2 December 2021) - The RfC tag has expired. BilledMammal (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1045 days ago on 8 January 2022) Request early closure, per snails pace of the RFC & the obvious direction it's heading toward. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- For future reference, per WP:RFCEND, the initiator of an RfC can withdraw the RfC early if the community response is obvious very quickly. That said, I'm trying to get more practice in wikipedia procedure and using the templates and whatnot, so I don't mind quickly stepping in and closing this out for you. Just, in the future... you can do it yourself. Don't feel like you need a formal 3rd party closer for this. Doing... Fieari (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- True, but I preferred it to be closed via request, rather then arbitrarily by myself. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1067 days ago on 17 December 2021) RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1065 days ago on 19 December 2021) The RFC tag has expired. We need a decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - A panel close was required for the AfD on this subject, but fortunately, I don't think a panel close will be required for the RfC, as most of it looks much less contentious. It might be a good idea to request an administrator close instead of a non-admin close, however, just to be safe? Fieari (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's been closed. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Wugapodes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1083 days ago on 1 December 2021) I wonder whether a closure is necessary. If a bot archives the discussion before closing, then closure would be taken as not necessary. Right? --George Ho (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- It wasn't entirely expected but I think we're making some progress again. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} The thread was archived, so I'm withdrawing the request. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1417 days ago on 2 January 2021) RfC is well past due. This RfC seems to have fallen through the cracks. Jehochman Talk 16:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} - Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1030 days ago on 24 January 2022) Although just started, this is a snow close and keeping it open is a distraction. It is outside the scope of RfCs. TFD (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1097 days ago on 17 November 2021) - RfC is expired. Can an uninvolved user or an admin close it? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ZaniGiovanni: I will complete this in 48 hours. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @ZaniGiovanni: my apologies, took me an extra 24 hours. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1053 days ago on 31 December 2021) Significant media-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Do you mean to ask for the closure of Talk:List of most expensive artworks by living artists#RfC: Categorizing NFT sales in the list of most expensive artworks by living artists? Isabelle 🔔 12:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato Sorry, that is absolutely what I meant. I'll change the heading. Thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} as the discussion had died down. Courtesy ping to Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Isabelle 🔔 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} as the discussion had died down. Courtesy ping to Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Isabelle 🔔 13:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Isabelle Belato Sorry, that is absolutely what I meant. I'll change the heading. Thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Talk:List of presidents of the United States#Request for comment: sortability, scope metadata, order
(Initiated 1075 days ago on 9 December 2021) The RFC tag has expired, after one month. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I've now closed discussions 1 and 3, meaning the overall RfC should be considered finished. Courtesy ping to GoodDay and Tol. Isabelle 🔔 00:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, @Isabelle Belato! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1059 days ago on 25 December 2021) -sche (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Isabelle 🔔 16:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} with courtesy ping to -sche. Isabelle 🔔 01:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1099 days ago on 15 November 2021) - Unclear what the consensus is, an editor left a message on my talk page asking for closure. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} pinging Chess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1048 days ago on 5 January 2022) No recent discussion, request uninvolved closure as there is some mild disagreement among participants. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1047 days ago on 6 January 2022) Can someone please close this RfC. It has been quiet for a while now. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1482 days ago on 29 October 2020) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
T-Ban appeal
(Initiated 1040 days ago on 13 January 2022) A request at ANI to lift a T-ban under the heading of "Second Chance" ran for 8 days but the conversation dried up. It was then bot archived before a decision was made one way or another. I would appreciate it if someone would formally close the discussion. Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: the appeal is archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Second Chance. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Colonestarrice (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
CfD backlog
The backlog at WP:CFD reached an all-time high. If only 10 administrators would close 20 discussions each the problem would be solved though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it's not an all-time high yet; the backlog was larger in October 2020 (Special:PermaLink/984936361). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile we certainly passed that too (it was 263 in October 2020). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - Someone once told me that people are aware that there is a backlog, and to close the simplest discussions which you are able to yourself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- Meanwhile we certainly passed that too (it was 263 in October 2020). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Close}}please address this at WP:AN – if still relevant – and not here. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1027 days ago on 27 January 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1111 days ago on 4 November 2021) Please review merge discussion here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} with courtesy ping to Jax 0677. Isabelle 🔔 16:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1027 days ago on 26 January 2022) Please review Talk:Live at the Village Vanguard (Christian McBride album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1088 days ago on 26 November 2021) - could an uninvolved, experienced editor close this? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 10:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1059 days ago on 26 December 2021) This RFC has been there for over a month now, and requires closure, please. Many thanks. --Armatura (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1046 days ago on 7 January 2022) It's been almost a month. Someone please close. --Firestar464 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1026 days ago on 27 January 2022) Please review the move request at Talk:Michelle Alyssa Go. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1067 days ago on 18 December 2021) Close challenge that itself needs a close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone? It's damaging to our processes when stuff like this is just left to wither on the vine, rather than receiving a proper resolution that could lead to next steps. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am explicitly declining to close a discussion that was archived for a month. The outcome was clearly that there was no consensus to overturn the initial close. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
{{done}} I'm going to manually unarchive the discussion so that everyone sees it. Jehochman Talk 19:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Greetings, Jehochman. I do not inted to re-open the discussion as such but is this not a request for an administrator to review and decide upon the closure challenge? If I'm not mistaken, and perhaps I'm missing something, you're not an admin, so how does this work out? -The Gnome (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe you need to be an admin to close a close review? BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says nothing about review closures being an admin prerogative and according to the archive, about half of all closure reviews in recent years were closed by non-admins. Colonestarrice (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Greetings, Jehochman. I do not inted to re-open the discussion as such but is this not a request for an administrator to review and decide upon the closure challenge? If I'm not mistaken, and perhaps I'm missing something, you're not an admin, so how does this work out? -The Gnome (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1072 days ago on 12 December 2021) RfC has expired and responses to the main question of the RfC have fizzled out. Continued discussion is best left for other threads, in my opinion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Responses are still coming in, and the discussion was dominated by several energetic BLUDGEON editors conversing with less active posters who take more time to reply. (I am one of the latter, if it matters). I think the trend of additional discussion has been to clarify some of the issues raised initially. I don't think the RfC is in a zombie state just yet but of course that is my biased opinion as a participant. Sesquivalent (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1067 days ago on 17 December 2021) RfC has expired and discussion fizzled out. Curbon7 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
- This being a rather significant RfC, since it's about the very definition of Wikipedia, it probably needs closure by an experienced administrator, or perhaps more than one. -The Gnome (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- My opinion, for whatever it's worth, is that there isn't consensus to change the pillar (not rejecting the null hypothesis, or not changing from the status quo). I haven't read through it enough to figure out if there's consensus against changing it. I'm certainly not experienced enough to close such an important discussion myself, though. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Did not require administrator, just experience. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1026 days ago on 27 January 2022) The result of this RfC looks rather straightforward and new comments have dwindled. Could someone uninvolved close it? पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1168 days ago on 7 September 2021) Discussion that needs closing, possibly by an administrator if the consensus is to unprotect the article. ––FormalDude talk 02:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} closed as no consensus FormalDude. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1026 days ago on 27 January 2022) Please review the rm discussion. Admin closure is needed due to pp Headphase (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1034 days ago on 19 January 2022) A "ongoing" ITN nomination that needs closing. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- The discussion is still relevant, but a timely closure would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}} per Stephen, archived ITNC discussions do not need closing, they are stale when more than a week old. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1056 days ago on 29 December 2021) RfC tag has expired, another editor has raised the issue that a formal closure is needed before edits can be made on the article (a fair point). Uninvolved closure with guidance on what a "brief mention" is, as described by some of the votes, would be particularly appreciated. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to A._C._Santacruz. Isabelle 🔔 00:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1052 days ago on 1 January 2022) Consensus is not immediately clear, would benefit from closure. BilledMammal (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to BilledMammal. Isabelle 🔔 20:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1052 days ago on 1 January 2022) Please review Talk:Howl at the Moon Piano Bar. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1017 days ago on 5 February 2022) - Discussions have started regarding an early closure to open a new RM. However, while there appears to be a consensus against the proposed title, although a closer may find differently, it is possible that there is also a consensus against the current title, so the discussion needs to be formally closed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - @BilledMammal:, why exactly should this be closed before one week has elapsed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that it should be, but if it is to be closed early as some editors are requesting then I would prefer that it is closed properly. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - @BilledMammal:, at this point, my post above has been overcome by events. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since it's now been over a week, the discussion seems to have slowed and there appears to be no clear consensus in favour of the proposed move. --WilliamTravis (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Probably not, but there may be a consensus against the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since it's now been over a week, the discussion seems to have slowed and there appears to be no clear consensus in favour of the proposed move. --WilliamTravis (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 14:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1061 days ago on 23 December 2021) The last edit in this RfC was made on 29 December. Uninvolved closure would be appreciated. Brandmeistertalk 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to Brandmeister. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1055 days ago on 29 December 2021) No discussion/edit in the last two weeks. hemantha (brief) 06:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Due to some hiccup, an XFDCloser relist removed it from 29 Dec log but failed to add it to Jan 9 log; causing this AfD to fall off the radar. I've added it now, so maybe once Mathbot picks it up, it'll appear again at WP:OLDAFD. hemantha (brief) 10:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've now added this manually to WP:OLDAFD since AfD closers appear to monitor that list. hemantha (brief) 10:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Ritchie333. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1028 days ago on 25 January 2022) Outcome seems clear. Would like an uninvolved editor to do the close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to Novem Linguae. Isabelle 🔔 04:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1037 days ago on 16 January 2022) RfC has been open for more than 1 month and is awaiting uninvolved closure. Brandmeistertalk 16:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to Brandmeister. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1025 days ago on 28 January 2022) Discussion slowed, even with a couple newer votes within the past week. Uninvolved closure needed. George Ho (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @George Ho: {{Done}} — This was my first closure ever. I hope I did everything correctly and was able to help!
LongLivePortugal (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @LongLivePortugal: I believe you need to clarify your close with what should happen to the current article, per WP:OTHEROPTIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Hmm... I hadn't thought about that... But is it necessary? This wasn't a move discussion; it was a standard RfC whose object was whether to convert the article to a disambiguation page, not whether it should be merged or moved (in fact, although a few editors mentioned it, consensus about that was unclear). The decided action (conversion to DAB) has already been performed. And any of the articles about the 2013–14 events — notably, Euromaidan, Russo-Ukrainian War and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation — are already much more developed than the pre-closure version of Ukrainian crisis, which makes it unlikely that there is anything in that version that isn't already present in the remaining articles (at least enough to justify a merge). Therefore, I think it is easiest if we leave it as it is (since the RfC was not meant to debate any merging or moving) and allow anyone who notices anything important in the deleted content from the pre-closure version which is absent from the other articles to freely add it there. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @LongLivePortugal: It wasn't a move discussion, but it also wasn't a deletion discussion. It might be easiest to do as you say, but I also don't believe it is correct, and I believe your close needs to be be adjusted to address what is correct. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: How can this not be correct? The contents of the pre-closure version are there for all editors to see; anyone can freely take that content and add it to any relevant existing articles, or even to create a new article with the whole content (which may be subject to an AfD in case of dispute). In addition, few of the participants of the RfC mentioned anything about what should happen to the article text. How can I determine what was the consensus with so few opinions? I do not understand; as I said, I have no experience in closing discussions (and I hope I didn't pick a bad one for a start!). What exactly would you suggest? LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @LongLivePortugal: It wasn't a move discussion, but it also wasn't a deletion discussion. It might be easiest to do as you say, but I also don't believe it is correct, and I believe your close needs to be be adjusted to address what is correct. BilledMammal (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: Hmm... I hadn't thought about that... But is it necessary? This wasn't a move discussion; it was a standard RfC whose object was whether to convert the article to a disambiguation page, not whether it should be merged or moved (in fact, although a few editors mentioned it, consensus about that was unclear). The decided action (conversion to DAB) has already been performed. And any of the articles about the 2013–14 events — notably, Euromaidan, Russo-Ukrainian War and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation — are already much more developed than the pre-closure version of Ukrainian crisis, which makes it unlikely that there is anything in that version that isn't already present in the remaining articles (at least enough to justify a merge). Therefore, I think it is easiest if we leave it as it is (since the RfC was not meant to debate any merging or moving) and allow anyone who notices anything important in the deleted content from the pre-closure version which is absent from the other articles to freely add it there. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @LongLivePortugal: I believe you need to clarify your close with what should happen to the current article, per WP:OTHEROPTIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@George Ho:, @Heanor: and @Robert McClenon: You seem to have been the main promoters of this RfC. What do you think about User:BilledMammal's opinion? Should I change anything in my closure? Can you help me? LongLivePortugal (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not a promoter, but I think you did all right. No opinions on the whole closure. I performed based on results you put. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
NAC: The RFC has been closed. Further discussion can be at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1023 days ago on 30 January 2022) – Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sandstein. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1038 days ago on 15 January 2022) Removed from CENT today; inactive for a few weeks. Three separate proposals that need closing. BilledMammal (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Isabelle 🔔 13:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to BilledMammal. Isabelle 🔔 15:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1005 days ago on 17 February 2022) There doesn't seem to be much more discussion on this topic, however I am seeing good arguments for both options so I'd like an uninvolved user to close it and determine teh consensus. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Close}}. @Blaze Wolf: I've done a close, although it probably wouldn't have hurt if you'd waited a few more days (as, although "there doesn't seem to be much more discussion on this topic", there are still plenty of comments within the last 24 hours)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- RandomCanadian I personally would have instructed Blaze Wolf to properly notify the relevant WikiProjects of the discussion (as this was not done in the case of WT:WikiProject Pokemon) and then waited 7 days after the notification was done to close. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Marking as done (though feels a bit premature). Isabelle 🔔 19:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- To be entirely fair, on second look, I probably shouldn't have closed it this early. However, this was a silly MOS dispute to begin with, I'm hopeful my close was accurate (if somebody has really staggering information which was missed, then they know where my talk page is) and won't result in any further contention on the topic, and if that's the case, I'm not going to be losing any sleep over having made this quicker. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1144 days ago on 1 October 2021) Hi, could someone take a look at the merge proposal on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies? I previously closed it but the closure was contested (there was also a further discussion on my talk page) and the merge was partially reverted. Relevant WikiProjects were notified again, with some additional input added. Because the closure was contested previously, my understanding is that it would be more appropriate for an uninvolved editor to close it. Note that there is a related comment under a later section Cheers. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} explicitly, although it seems that the merge was done already. Courtesy ping to Xurizuri. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1014 days ago on 8 February 2022) The period for discussion has ended and two weeks have passed with clear consensus to close as move but it still hasn't been closed by anybody, I can't close it because I'm the one who started the discussion.Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1033 days ago on 20 January 2022) Been about a month. Probably ready for closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1008 days ago on 14 February 2022) Discussion has ended. Would be useful for an outside editor to summarise consensus. MedianJoe (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @MedianJoe: Doesn't need an uninvolved editor as there is no lack of consensus. TSP (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1049 days ago on 4 January 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jax 0677 people have commented on the discussion in the past 2 days (including your vote), so I believe closing now may be a bit premature. Additionally, participation in the discussion is quite low so if the discussion hasn't been advertised in the relevant WikiProjects I'd recommend leaving a {{discussion notice}} template on their talk pages now. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I just left notices at 3 WikiProjects. This discussion has been going on for more than 6 weeks, so I think we have had a sufficient amount of communication regarding the issue. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Jax 0677 I'll take a look after 7 days from the notification (what I consider a justified wait time), so if I forget please ping me :). Thanks for notifying the projects.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - @A. C. Santacruz:, just a reminder that one week has passed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doing..., Jax 0677, thanks for the ping. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Jax 0677.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I just left notices at 3 WikiProjects. This discussion has been going on for more than 6 weeks, so I think we have had a sufficient amount of communication regarding the issue. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1006 days ago on 16 February 2022) Closure would be good as it has been more than seven days, and a final statement on this discussion is important as it will help editors move on, after the discussion has concluded. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Closing it quickly would be a mistake. Some AFDs run for 2 or 3 weeks or longer, depending on the complexity. No need for a request to close here. Let the normal process continue. Any article in AFD is viewed regularly by multiple admins, who obviously decided it needed to keep running to get a full review by the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- What Dennis said, except that I've made it a bit more explicit by relisting the discussion for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, discussion has been relisted. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- What Dennis said, except that I've made it a bit more explicit by relisting the discussion for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that, and I find that very unfortunate, as it puts the page in jeopardy. Other AfDs have been closed very quickly and it seems strange to keep this one open. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's very simple: We don't keep them open or close them fast in order to change the likely outcome. We keep them open if there is participation. You sound like you want the page kept no matter what, so you want to move the goalposts quickly to get a "keep". There is so much wrong with that attitude, I can't explain it all in a paragraph or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that, and I find that very unfortunate, as it puts the page in jeopardy. Other AfDs have been closed very quickly and it seems strange to keep this one open. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1080 days ago on 4 December 2021) Admin closure would be best. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}; no need for tools. --GRuban (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1033 days ago on 20 January 2022) Expired RFC that appears to have a consensus and is ready to close. ––FormalDude talk 22:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1031 days ago on 22 January 2022) Can an admin review the merge discussion? Seems to have a strong consensus to merge so it should be closed and merged back into the parent article. 209.201.121.4 (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1016 days ago on 6 February 2022) Please relist or review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1024 days ago on 29 January 2022): No new comments since 20 February. The outcome (unless it is option D) will need to be implemented by an interface administrator and will be noticed site-wide so this should have a formal closure, especially as it's a follow-up to an earlier RFC that was formally closed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1042 days ago on 11 January 2022) Closure would be good, if possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Fayenatic london. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1046 days ago on 7 January 2022) Discussion has slowed, even after one relisting. I'm unsure whether futher prolonging the discussion would benefit much. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Explicit. --George Ho (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1032 days ago on 21 January 2022): Needs formal closing. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to AbettercheckersplayerthanI. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1033 days ago on 20 January 2022) Already had one overturned closure, probably should be closed by an admin or experienced non admin. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1031 days ago on 22 January 2022) – Thread has been dormant for almost a month without being closed. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1020 days ago on 2 February 2022) Hi, a declared COI editor has proposed that a portion of this article be split into a new, separate article. I think that closure by an uninvolved editor is warranted because a lot of angry people on the internet have been looking at these edit requests [6] (an aftermath of the Gamestop short squeeze) and I wouldn't want to proceed without the go-ahead of a neutral editor. JBchrch talk 16:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to JBchrch. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much @A. C. Santacruz! JBchrch talk 14:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1003 days ago on 20 February 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1044 days ago on 9 January 2022) RfC tag has expired, and the last edit in this RfC was made on 25 January (14 days ago). Uninvolved closure would be most welcome. Pilaz (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- To the closer: following this discussion with BilledMammal, please note that some preferences are expressed without the usual bolding, including in nested replies. Pilaz (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Pilaz and BilledMammal: {{done}} — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1034 days ago on 19 January 2022)
Original non-neutral request by gri3720
|
|---|
|
Discussion has already been going on for a month. It's clear there will be no consensus. The discussion has become impossible to navigate and the point of the original discussion has been lost.(talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by gri3720 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
|
- This has been going on for over a month and not much discussion is happening except on a few subproposals. The primary proposal should probably be closed first (as it passing, if that was found to be the consensus, would make everything else redundant). You should probably treat each of the remaining subproposals as independent discussions from the others (that way the burden can be shared and you don't have to do it all at once). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:Wugapodes. Natg 19 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1023 days ago on 30 January 2022): Messy discussion involving analysis of different types of RS to determine whether or not using the current article title in the first sentence conforms to NPOV. Was previously closed in favor of option A, which was overturned at AN. Should be closed by an admin this time. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe ProcrastinatingReader is currently in the process of closing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1018 days ago on 4 February 2022) Would like a formal closure for this one so that the result can be listed at WP:RSP, as this is an unusual source that is likely to come up again. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Compassionate727. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1042 days ago on 11 January 2022) Needs someone to close this RM; been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 01:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1035 days ago on 18 January 2022) Needs someone to close this RM; been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 01:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1002 days ago on 20 February 2022) Substantive discussion has been done for two weeks now, with a clear consensus for an indef ban and topic ban both. Section was automatically archived, and subsequently restored to ANI. Ravenswing 05:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by EdJohnston. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1014 days ago on 8 February 2022) Been open for about a month. Ready for a formal close I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Novem Linguae, seeing as how new editors have commented in the past few days, I think it would be wise to wait another week. If no additional comments by new participants have been added by then, feel free to ping me and I'll go ahead and close. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1051 days ago on 2 January 2022) RFC with three different options that are not mutually exclusive. Needs closing. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... -- currently working on the policy rationale for the close so it may take a while. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to BilledMammal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1004 days ago on 18 February 2022) Quiet for more than a week. Sorry but very contentious article so requesting formal close. NadVolum (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Bsoyka (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- @NadVolum: {{Done}}. Bsoyka (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1019 days ago on 3 February 2022) Last relisted on 10 February. Avilich (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1019 days ago on 3 February 2022) Last relisted 10 February. Avilich (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1009 days ago on 13 February 2022) I'd close this but I've already voted in it. —ScottyWong— 18:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @ScottyWong: {{done}} — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 997 days ago on 25 February 2022) Uninvolved closure is requested. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1061 days ago on 23 December 2021) Active discussion has ended among current participants. –Zfish118⋉talk 14:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} This was never formally opened as an
{{RFC}}. While it is sometimes helpful and appropriate to place a formal closure on an informal discussion, it is unclear to me that it would be appropriate or helpful to do so here. Given that this close-request has been unanswered for two months, it appears all prospective closers are similarly disinclined to close this discussion. If participants have continuing irreconcilable conflict, I recommend using the {{RFC}} template to seek outside input.
Courtesy ping to requester Zfish118. I would like to note that I applied comparable review, consideration, and care to declining this request as I might apply to a close itself. Alsee (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1012 days ago on 10 February 2022) RfC tag expired, would benefit from closure. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. (Ping A._C._Santacruz). ––FormalDude talk 01:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 988 days ago on 6 March 2022) UNANIMOUS, I request early closure to avoid wasting anyone's time any further. I'd close it myself, but I responded when I was randomly invited by bot. The RFC was opened by an IP, and the article history shows multiple accounts recently blocked for socking. There is significant likelihood that the RFC-author used IP to block-evade. Regardless, opposition is unanimous. The IP didn't even bother casting a support vote. Alsee (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1071 days ago on 13 December 2021) Please review discussion. Matter was taken to WP:RSN to resolve a dispute. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 997 days ago on 25 February 2022) An editor has requested this be closed; it has had no new !votes for a week, but it might be worth letting it run the full month. BilledMammal (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think any RfC recommended by ARBCOM should probably the run the full month unless a clear SNOW situation presents itself. I don't think that's the case here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Arbcom specifically decided not to recommend an RfC with 0 supports, 5 opposes, and 6 abstains. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#RFC on status of Skeptical Inquirer. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Considered, rather than recommended, still implies to me it probably should run the full 30 days, Guy Macon Alternate Account. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer the RfC to run for the full month; I don't think that there is a particularly urgent reason to close it at this point. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Considered, rather than recommended, still implies to me it probably should run the full 30 days, Guy Macon Alternate Account. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Arbcom specifically decided not to recommend an RfC with 0 supports, 5 opposes, and 6 abstains. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision#RFC on status of Skeptical Inquirer. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Call for experienced closer at RfC: Skeptical_Inquirer --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
{{Not done}} for at least two reasons. First, two editors added !votes on 15 March 2022, which indicates that other editors may also participate. Second, an RFC that involves any question that has divided the community so much that arbitration was necessary should run for the full 30 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1038 days ago on 15 January 2022) Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Doing.... Size of discussion means it might take a while. Isabelle 🔔 00:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Dicklyon. Isabelle 🔔 04:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1008 days ago on 14 February 2022) Formal closure by any editor is requested. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1032 days ago on 21 January 2022) – Ahecht (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1010 days ago on 12 February 2022) RfC tag expired in talk page discussed in recent Arbcom case. Would greatly benefit from uninvolved close. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1009 days ago on 13 February 2022) Formal closure by an experienced editor is requested, after which a long-running moderated dispute resolution will resume. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: The talk page has two similarly named open RfC. Although your header leads to the older one (initiated 8 February), am I correct to assume that one was cancelled and it's only the second one ("New RFC on Inclusion Rules for Italian Political Parties") that requires formal closing? Thanks. Isabelle 🔔 15:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Isabelle Belato - Yes. I apologize for the confusion. I should have boxed the first one when it was cancelled. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Isabelle 🔔 02:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, courtesy ping to Robert McClenon. Isabelle 🔔 04:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- User:Isabelle Belato - Yes. I apologize for the confusion. I should have boxed the first one when it was cancelled. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1003 days ago on 19 February 2022) Would be good to have a formal close please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing...> A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to Mike Peel. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Unclosed deletion reviews from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February
There are several of these to work through, I'm afraid.—S Marshall T/C 14:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, all clear now.—S Marshall T/C 09:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 978 days ago on 16 March 2022) Original nominator has changed it to a move discussion. WP:SNOW also applies. Skyerise (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1063 days ago on 22 December 2021) I asked the Queensland project to close it but no one has done so. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1049 days ago on 5 January 2022). I asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oceans#Sea surface temperature but no one has closed. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1039 days ago on 15 January 2022) This GAR was closed as no consensus/keep as GA on March 10. I disputed the close as a supervote and it was reopened March 14 by Buidhe. I do not feel comfortable closing this myself due to my involvement in disputing the original close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 996 days ago on 26 February 2022) Could use admin closure. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Meh, this is uncontroversial and doesn't need a formal closure, just an admin to implement it. I moved the DAB page and have requested an admin delete the resulting redirect. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Great, thanks! Though a formal closure will still be nessecary for policy and technical reasons and I'm not allowed to close my own RM, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could do it. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I… sure. I'm technically not supposed to close discussions I lack the ability to implement, but because I've already gone to all the effort to examine, this I may as well as save others the trouble. IAR, and all that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you! ({{done}}) Colonestarrice (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I… sure. I'm technically not supposed to close discussions I lack the ability to implement, but because I've already gone to all the effort to examine, this I may as well as save others the trouble. IAR, and all that. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: Great, thanks! Though a formal closure will still be nessecary for policy and technical reasons and I'm not allowed to close my own RM, so I would greatly appreciate it if you could do it. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1024 days ago on 29 January 2022) Nardog (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1122 days ago on 23 October 2021) Discussion seems stale, please close. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1023 days ago on 30 January 2022) Been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1013 days ago on 9 February 2022) Another stale discussion. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, though with a dreadfully unhelpful result —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1011 days ago on 11 February 2022) Been open for over 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 982 days ago on 12 March 2022) Uninvolved closure is requested. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1036 days ago on 17 January 2022) This has never been resolved and is currently in the reliable sources noticeboard archives, and is in need of resolution. The RfC is about the reliability of a news source that is primarily focused on the topic of North Korea. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} - finding a consensus that's going to be unsatisfactory to everyone, even me.
Sorry. --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1005 days ago on 17 February 2022) Needs one uninvolved editor (or two) to determine results of the discussion. Skyerise (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Tigraan: Quite an odd RFC: a lot of repetition of arguments irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. But ultimately, no resounding conclusion to be found in any direction. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1001 days ago on 21 February 2022) 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: This RFC was pretty clear in terms of WP:BLP verifiability issues, and I imagine you raised it primarily to draw a line under the matter. Job done, hopefully. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1013 days ago on 9 February 2022) Needs one uninvolved editor (or two) to determine results of the discussion. George Ho (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Joe Roe. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 972 days ago on 22 March 2022) Editors in a DS topic area got in an edit war and boomerangs are flying all around. I think an early close would be beneficial before the whole issue gets taken to AE. Disclosure: I'm currently moderating a DRN case being held up by this ANI thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thread has been archived, no closure needed now. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: Besides
|done=yes, you still need to use one of the templates listed at the top otherwise it won't archive - in this case, it would be {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- I see now, thanks Redrose64 ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @A. C. Santacruz: Besides
(Initiated 1010 days ago on 12 February 2022) Part of a larger RFC; all other questions have been closed. No replies for over a month. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping to BilledMammal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1004 days ago on 18 February 2022) Requesting a close to an open RfC on the following question, "Should the MOS say that a space is required (or suggested) between each section and the content below it and sub-section and the content below it?" I initiated this RfC on 15:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC). Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1003 days ago on 19 February 2022)
The only reason I'm not closing this myself is due to a previous RfC on the same issue which resulted in no consensus. – 2.O.Boxing 22:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, with courtesy ping to Squared.Circle.Boxing. Isabelle 🔔 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 970 days ago on 24 March 2022) Draft was MfDed by me, but in a later review of CSD rules, I realised that the draft met conditions of G6-error. I nominated it for CSD under the same criteria and it was then speedy deleted. No need of continuing the discussion. Requesting closure. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 09:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1058 days ago on 26 December 2021) Very stale discussion, no discussion in a month.--74.101.118.197 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I don't think IPs get ping notifications, so I'll leave a not at .197's user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1016 days ago on 6 February 2022) Been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1016 days ago on 6 February 2022) Been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1015 days ago on 7 February 2022) Been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. No consensus.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1014 days ago on 8 February 2022) Been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}, closed by User:Skarmory, 08:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1009 days ago on 13 February 2022) Been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1004 days ago on 18 February 2022) Been open for over 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 991 days ago on 3 March 2022) Request has gone ten (10) days without further discussion and enough discussion has already taken place that a consensus should be able to be determined. The Ghost of Art Toys Past (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 979 days ago on 15 March 2022) – Talk:ScotRail Trains#Requested move 15 March 2022 Consensus was reached some time ago, but a delay on the page move until the legal operating company change took place on 1 April. That has now happened so we are good for the page moves discussed to take place ASAP. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 997 days ago on 25 February 2022)
In my opinion, this RfC should be closed by an uninvolved editor with experience in contentious closes and enough free time to respond to a close challenge.
The RfC closes at 20:34, 27 March 2022 but I wanted to give any potential closers time to decide whether to take this on before an inexperienced editor sees the 30 days have passed, jumps in, and posts a close that is certain to be disputed. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Let us not rehash these arguments. The above statement should suffice. Isabelle 🔔 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
I am asking for a experienced closer for several reasons:
--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
|
- {{Done}} Closed with a reasonably clear consensus to use the Skeptical Inquirer with consideration given to proper usage in consonance with existing sourcing and content policy. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 981 days ago on 13 March 2022) – I think this has been open long enough, and consensus was clear before the third relist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Modussicandi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1018 days ago on 4 February 2022) Been open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Ganesha811 (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811:, would you be willing to postpone your close and allow time for me to submit a comment? No big deal if the answer is no. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers:, sure, I'll revisit it in a few hours. Your comment might make the close easier or it might make it harder, but either way I'll get back to this after you have contributed! :) Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: comment submitted. You have my gratitude. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{Close}} - not moved. @Natg 19:, closed at last! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811: comment submitted. You have my gratitude. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers:, sure, I'll revisit it in a few hours. Your comment might make the close easier or it might make it harder, but either way I'll get back to this after you have contributed! :) Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ganesha811:, would you be willing to postpone your close and allow time for me to submit a comment? No big deal if the answer is no. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1004 days ago on 18 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1002 days ago on 20 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1000 days ago on 22 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:Colonestarrice 11:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 999 days ago on 23 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 999 days ago on 23 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 998 days ago on 24 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:Iffy 12:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 994 days ago on 28 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 988 days ago on 6 March 2022) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 987 days ago on 7 March 2022)
No comments for a week, closure would be good. Fwiw, per [7], WMF may be watching this one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Isabelle 🏳🌈 02:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 979 days ago on 15 March 2022)
No comments for more than a week, consensus appears to be very clearly "no" (pretty much SNOW). I am an involved editor; while I could close per WP:RFCCLOSE, the discussion was contentious and I think a close by an uninvolved admin or editor with a summary would be preferable. Thanks. General Ization Talk 15:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, courtesy ping General Ization. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1056 days ago on 28 December 2021) We've had a month-long discussion on this, but it fizzled out in late January. Last reply was on 2 February 2022. Since the question at hand reappears at AfD every so often, we could probably benefit from a close. Pilaz (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Pilaz. I read the linked discussion through once. My first thought is that the discussion doesn't particularly need formal closure, and that it reads like the editors involved are hashing out ideas that might then be used in an actionable proposal. Do you still seek formal closure of the discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, as the discussion does not require formal closure. Courtesy ping for Pilaz. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 994 days ago on 28 February 2022). Open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 997 days ago on 25 February 2022) An experienced uninvolved close would be appreciated. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Courtesy ping for Spy-cicle. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1034 days ago on 19 January 2022) Cinderella157 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - I took the liberty of adding "2" to the name of this RfC, because the previous one had the exact same name otherwise. I don't want to admit how many times I clicked on the link to "the previous RfC" only to return to this one.
--GRuban (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1009 days ago on 13 February 2022) Please review the discussion at Talk:Justin (name). --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I could hat the discussion, but honestly I don't think that giving a formal closure to this discussion makes sense at this point considering the relative dearth of substantive discussion on the proposal. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - @Mhawk10:, what do you mean by "hat the discussion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- By "hat" I meant "formally mark the discussion as closed, write a brief closing summary, and collapse the discussion". My wording was imprecise, for which I apologize. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It comes from the use of the template pair
{{hat}}/{{hab}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It comes from the use of the template pair
- By "hat" I meant "formally mark the discussion as closed, write a brief closing summary, and collapse the discussion". My wording was imprecise, for which I apologize. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I might have you close this, after which time I might start a request for comment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Mwhak10 that the discussion doesn't require formal closure. @Jax 0677: I don't think you need to wait for closure to start and RfC. You might like to consider the other options at WP:RFCBEFORE, but you can definitely say you've attempted local discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I simply added the links on my own. If I get reverted, I might start an RFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reasonable. Marking as {{not done}} so this can be archived. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I simply added the links on my own. If I get reverted, I might start an RFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - I might have you close this, after which time I might start a request for comment. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reply - @Mhawk10:, what do you mean by "hat the discussion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1203 days ago on 3 August 2021) Extremely old and stale RFC that hasn't had any participation in over six months. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Will post a note at the IP's talk page (AFAIK they can't be pinged). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 992 days ago on 2 March 2022) Discussion has been running a month, generated a ton of comments. Commenting has died down, there's clearly enough to determine something. --Jayron32 16:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
{{Done}}, Jayron32. Heartfox (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 979 days ago on 15 March 2022) This discussion has had no replies for over a week, and has been relisted two times, each time failing to create a clear consensus. Closed once before second relisting by User:Star Mississippi. Closure by an experienced AFD admin would be helpful. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is a clear consensus to delete if you discount the half-baked keep !votes Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- that it hasn't been closed since my Thursday, 31 March relist makes me thing I mungled something in the relist and it's not on a log. Star Mississippi 00:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looks properly logged to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into it! Star Mississippi 01:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looks properly logged to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Spartaz * Pppery * it has begun... 19:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 965 days ago on 29 March 2022) Please review Talk:Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident#Notability. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Why would this need a close? It's ongoing and this sort of thing would be resolved at WP:AFD (where it already closed keep) not at a random talk page discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 965 days ago on 29 March 2022) Please review Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_March_29#File:Will_Smith_slaps_Chris_Rock.jpg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{already done}} Closed as Keep. Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1028 days ago on 25 January 2022) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 00:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{Already done}}, by Jamesmcardle in this edit. Courtesy ping for NIghtwolf1223. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fixing ping: NightWolf1223. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 977 days ago on 17 March 2022) The unblock discussion has been open for 12 days with no further major discussion taking place. I believe the request is ready to close. Operator873 connect 20:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 969 days ago on 25 March 2022) AN/I posting on which not a single Administrator has commented. Oldest posting on AN/I by multiple days, discussion has largely stopped and it seems everyone has said their piece. A verdict is needed one way or another. BSMRD (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please, please, April 6, somebody close this. 3,220 words have been added since BSMRD's request, (per MSWord count, and I didn't include diffs or links, just visible text.) This gotcha-trading pileup gets longer and more toxic until somebody stops it. See also this edit summary, "... I need a break and need to do other things. I will be back later today with particular attention to the representation of my beliefs on Nazis."[8] HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{done}} by El_C. Isabelle 🏳🌈 23:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 985 days ago on 9 March 2022)
Needs one or two uninvolved closers. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 981 days ago on 14 March 2022) CENT-listed discussion that needs an uninvolved close. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1010 days ago on 12 February 2022) – ask that a closer please look at this and end the eager anticipation. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 11:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 976 days ago on 18 March 2022) – Another move review that should be closed. Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 21:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 971 days ago on 23 March 2022) Not a particularly difficult close, in my opinion, but this discussion has brought in a bunch of WP:SPAs from Reddit who are having a hard time seeing that, and have been arguing about it for many months (see discussions directly above on its talk page for further context.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's now edit warring going on, as some editors refuse to see a consensus, so a formal close really would help. I'd rather start with that and then move on to page protection afterwards if they persist. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doing... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- {{already done}}, as JalenFolf beat me to it. I was going to close with the same result, FYI. Courtesy ping for Sergecross73, who'd I'd (gently, cordially) encourage to keep future closure requests a bit more neutral. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1033 days ago on 21 January 2022) Expired RfC. Could an experienced editor please assess consensus? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Initiated 1021 days ago on 1 February 2022) This discussion was started in February. Since then, it has been relisted three times, and discussion seems to not be reaching a clear consensus. Closure by an experienced editor or admin would be helpful. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B45D:61AC:E323:660D (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)