成绩好的秘诀？英国科学家：上午学数学 下午学历史
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
|
百度 在3月22日的公告中，美的集团还表示，将在中国的顺德科技园新建生产基地,进行新产品开发,到2024年，机器人产能将达到每年75000台。
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
[edit]- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
[edit](Initiated 24 days ago on 12 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 29 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 30 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requests for comment
[edit](Initiated 114 days ago on 13 April 2025) Formal closure needed, no contributions in over 2 months. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 84 days ago on 14 May 2025) This RfC's participation is petering out as we near the month-long mark, and it's probably time for a closure by someone or a small group of someones. Thank you! Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 08:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 10#RfC: Adopting a community position on WMF AI development
[edit](Initiated 69 days ago on 29 May 2025) The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 12 June 2025) It has been a week since the last response. Briefly, the discussion centered on the primary/secondary nature of a source and how to include it, mainly regarding appropriate wording. Some additional sources were also suggested and discussed. Dekadoka (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 Its been a week, do you still expect to close this discussion? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!? 00:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm still working on it. Because the outcome will possibly be contentious and the discussion itself is quite complex with several overlapping issues, I am trying to be extra careful. If somebody else wants to close it before me, go ahead. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 Its been a week, do you still expect to close this discussion? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!? 00:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox government cabinet#RfC on composition bars in the infoboxes of cabinet articles
[edit](Initiated 53 days ago on 13 June 2025) Most of the discussion was over by 17 June, and since then there has been only one response, on 7 July, which was 22 days ago. The RfC tag was removed and it looks like the topic is unlikely to attract more attention, so it's probably time for a closure. Impru20talk 09:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict#RFC: Inclusion of Pakistani claim regarding Pahalgam attack in Background section
[edit](Initiated 47 days ago on 20 June 2025) This RFC was ended by Legobot and closed by me due to what I considered clear and stable consensus. After an objection was raised regarding my involvement, I reopened it and submitted it for uninvolved closure. While that request was pending, two aligned !votes were added, which I believe may be the result of vote stacking. I've documented the concern on the talk page for transparency. I now request closure from an uninvolved editor, taking into account the timing and nature of those !votes, as well as the original body of discussion. However, if the closer believes those comments are valid and should be included in the assessment of consensus, I am willing to let the RFC continue for a longer period to allow more neutral participation. Sheriff | ? 911 | 23:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Barely a neutral request with baseless claims of canvassing. What also goes unacknowledged is the procedural violation by the nominator closing a contentious RfC they started themsleves. Gotitbro (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 30 June 2025) Last comment was 2 weeks ago and RfC tag is about to be removed. Probably not a fun one to close, not formatted well (or people didn't follow the formatting) and lengthy and repeated comments on source analysis, but only 6 participants. Someone will be getting a thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 3 July 2025) Been open about a month, votes have stabilized but discussion continues in circles. Formal close required. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ? ? (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 7 July 2025) Seems to be heading towards a close, and will expire in two days. Non-obvious enough to need a close. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 10 July 2025) Conversation has petered off entirely, however one editor is requesting a formal close. -- D'n'B-?? -- 14:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Deletion discussions
[edit]| V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 69 | 0 | 69 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 |
| MfD | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 31 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
(Initiated 57 days ago on 10 June 2025) Has been opened for more than a month now. Ready to be closed by an experienced admin. Thanks! Some1 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 19#Category:Lists of science fiction television characters by series
[edit](Initiated 50 days ago on 16 June 2025) HouseBlaster (talk ? he/they) 02:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted for a second time on 19 July. P.I. Ellsworth?, ed. – welcome! – 20:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 19 June 2025) —Matrix(!) ping onewhen replying {u - t? - uselessc} 13:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Closed by editor Matrix. P.I. Ellsworth?, ed. – welcome! – 03:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 5 July 2025) HouseBlaster (talk ? he/they) 15:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 3 days ago on 3 August 2025) Article with BLP issues and is speedy deletion eligible under G4 as the substantially similar article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Byron was closed as delete a few weeks prior. Pinging User:Salvio giuliano as the closer of the prior discussion. Dan Leonard (talk ? contribs) 17:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Dan Leonard: thanks for the ping. I'd rather let the AFD run its course, as I don't think the article can be speedied per G4, though any other admin is free to close the discussion early. Salvio giuliano 07:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Merge proposals
[edit](Initiated 258 days ago on 20 November 2024) No comments for two months, previous comment was another three months before that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) ?? 17:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 243 days ago on 5 December 2024) Thebiguglyalien (talk) ?? 23:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 11 days ago on 25 July 2025) There is virtually unanimous opinion here and is unlikely to change in consensus, but since I am involved as the proposer and due to the one opposition it requires an impartial closer for the discussion. ?x????? (?) 22:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Requested moves
[edit]Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading
[edit]Other types of closing requests
[edit](Initiated 36 days ago on 1 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 17 July 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 14 days ago on 22 July 2025) Not technically an RfC; this did not feel contentious enough to avoid closure given consensus went a clear direction and the discussion had slowed. Has since been reverted as I had contributed prior so seeking a second opinion. MB2437 23:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This was initially listed under the RfCs section. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)