This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.
(Initiated 324 days ago on 22 September 2024) There are a bunch of these on this day's log; I'll only list the one but help closing 'em all would be appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk ? he/they) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 332 days ago on 15 September 2024) – Closed by involved editor under unclear consensus, reopened by a likely sockpuppet account. Discussion has died down and I want an uninvolved closer to get this over and done with. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 331 days ago on 15 September 2024)Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Doing... The consensus is obvious, I just need to be fully awake when I attempt to implement it or I'll probably mess something up. —Compassionate727(T·C)19:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 401 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 369 days ago on 8 August 2024) - This has been open and the discussion is at a standstill. While the proposer requested to keep it open, I don't think that it's proper. Another can be opened at another time, but at this point, if someone wouldn't mind closing it, I think that would be helpful to move on. Andre??01:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 340 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy?? (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi Nemov. I am seeing activity since your request was posted (most recently on October 6, 2024), and thus I expect that allowing the RFC to run the full 30 days will produce a better consensus. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 430 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR(Please ping on reply)20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
That's an impossible discussion to close because nobody either supported or opposed the business on the table. The only respondent proposed his own alternate proposal which the nominator opposed. Therefore, it should simply be relisted again. Andre??07:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 314 days ago on 3 October 2024)
Active for over a week and the draft is submitted, would be nice if we can close. Crete44 (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 316 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM #8, 257 comments, 54 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down, and all arguments have probably been stated at least once. Gr?bergs Gr?a S?ng (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 304 days ago on 12 October 2024) - Discussion about the upcoming WP:AELECT. Consensus should be not a hard evaluation, it's just time sensitive as the discussion phase begins by 21 October. Soni (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 329 days ago on 17 September 2024)
A RFC on a WP:BLP that is winding down and could use a close from an experienced closer. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 299 days ago on 17 October 2024) There's a number of proposals made as part of the discussion that require closing as a number of editors have expressed a desire that the whole discussion be closed. Can a admin please close all proposals and then the whole discussion itself. TarnishedPathtalk03:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 361 days ago on 17 August 2024)
Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S MarshallT/C09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. The outcome of the Commons DR and subsequent discussions have raised more difficult questions than they answered that I'm struggling a bit to sort through. I've requested input at WP:DfD; depending on the feedback I receive, I may settle on an outcome or punt the whole thing to someone more experienced with images. —Compassionate727(T·C)20:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
If Commons has decided to keep the image I think we're good on this and this discussion can be closed. This came up after the RFC was created the original topic seems to be simple. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Commons has a lot of problems, especially with its... lax attitude toward copyright. I don't think we can safely consider Commons' decision as authoritative.In any case, I have decided to vote here, so I won't be closing this. —Compassionate727(T·C)11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 342 days ago on 5 September 2024)
An RfC about adding a short summary to a section. Last addition/comment was 8 October. All those involved with previous discussion have been notified of RfC (although not all have responded).--Louis P. Boog (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 327 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. AwesomeAasim21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 320 days ago on 27 September 2024) The discussion has passed the seven-day mark. I kindly request an uninvolved editor to review and close it at their earliest convenience. Thank you! Btspurplegalaxy?????06:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 325 days ago on 22 September 2024) Discussion has mostly stabilized, with one vote today and the previous vote two weeks ago. Feels like a pretty clear consensus but will obviously have a significant impact. Sincerely, Dilettante17:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 299 days ago on 17 October 2024) Follow-up to recent closed RM (one of many over the years). Discussion has died down. A close on the moratorium-issue would be good. Gr?bergs Gr?a S?ng (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 320 days ago on 26 September 2024)
An RfC about changing the lede picture for Edward Heath. There has been no activity on the RfC in 17 days, and the consensus isn't immediately clear about the changing of the infobox picture. --Brocade River Poems (She/They)23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 440 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. Restoring this here after this close was declined by AirshipJungleman29 because there were no new comments for two months indicate that participants have already assessed that there is no consensus and moved on.. Per WP:MERGECLOSE, a contested merge discussion cannot be closed by involved participants. In my experience merge discussions often linger until an editor closes them and it's not unusual for very old merge discussions/uncontested merge proposals to be closed and implemented or not as the case may be. See my discussion with AJ29. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
No, that's obvious enough that it doesn't need a formal close. You can go ahead and update WP:RSP with a pointer to that discussion. It's best not to edit archived material where that's avoidable.—S MarshallT/C11:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 327 days ago on 20 September 2024) - I previously closed this, but was sent a talk page message asking to re-open it (which vaguely threatened WP:MRV, but I hadn't even noticed at the moment to be honest, and it wouldn't have affected my decision), I decided on the merits of the editor's argument to go ahead and re-open it, a decision I will take with much more consideration in the future as until now, I hadn't realized how disruptive that could potentially be. I just learned that the RM is still open and needs a close, but I am not certain if it is proper for me to close it again as it was already closed once by me, just hoping someone here can take a look or let me know if it's proper for me to close it. Thanks! ASUKITE20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 322 days ago on 25 September 2024)
Last addition/comment was a week and a half ago (October 4th). As far as I can tell all those involved with previous discussion have responded. Relm (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 346 days ago on 1 September 2024) Discussion has become inactive and I'd like a third party opinion of the concensus. Adriazeri (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 315 days ago on 2 October 2024)
Discussion has slowed after 30 days; needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor please. Muzilon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is too stale, especially given how half of voters picked "wait." I think that if somebody wants to merge this article, they should feel free to boldly undertake it, or if they'd rather clarify things, start a fresh discussion on the talk page of one of the proposed parents. I'll leave this open in case another closer feels differently, though. —Compassionate727(T·C)14:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 442 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gr?bergs Gr?a S?ng (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S MarshallT/C11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a priority given S Marshall's input, but I'll save it for offline reading. If I have time while I'm in Cuba next week, I'll take a look at it and see if I can't summarize some of the broader points and ideas potentially worth pursuing. —Compassionate727(T·C)23:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven’t accomplished anything on this. I couldn’t find a way to save a readable copy of the discussion to my iPad, and the government of Cuba has disabled the Internet nationwide to suppress news of the ongoing blackout. —Compassionate727(T·C)22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the notes @Gr?bergs Gr?a S?ng, @Super Goku V, @Compassionate727, and I appreciate your input @S Marshall! Sorry for not getting to this earlier; I've had some unexpected personal commitments that have taken up most of my bandwidth. Given that it looks like this would be left best as an unclosed discussion, I'll mark this request as resolved for now ({{not done}}). Frostly (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Frostly and Compassionate727: Personally, I think it would be useful to try to discern some sort of conclusion from it, if only to provide editors some level of guidance as to how to respond to future notifications in that form.
I’ve marked it for not done for now, to prevent it being auto archived before this comment can be read, but if you’re confident closing it won’t be useful I won’t object to remarking it as done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 431 days ago on 7 June 2024) discussion effectively ceased on 19 June 2024 with arguably enough difference of opinion to require an uninvoved close. Thanks! Draken Bowser (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 294 days ago on 23 October 2024) No further activity beyond the first two days this discussion was open. Alternative page move titles were proposed by User:Pi.1415926535, but no real consensus has been reached either way. Discussion was relisted after the first week to the relevant WP:PROJECTS, but this has failed to result in any further activity. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 291 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[2]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy?? (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielxT/C\R15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 271 days ago on 14 November 2024) Anyone up for a barnstar? This one's long, difficult, and new. If no-one wants to close it, that's fine. However, it's clearly not reaching the super-consensus required. It should probably be closed so that we can stop wasting editor time and/or apply ourselves to proposals that have a better chance of passing. Sincerely, Dilettante01:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
No, nobody's going to SNOW close a discussion of that nature with that much participation when it's only been open a few hours. It may be "wasting editor time" but there's a darkening mood in the community about this and it's best that we allow a pressure valve: a place for editors to gather and speak their minds.—S MarshallT/C08:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I responded to the RfC, so obviously this is not an uninvolved opinion, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to snow-close the RfC component of this, even though it hasn't been open long. The RfC was thrown together quickly because of a perceived need for urgency; there were even discussions early on about how the normal RFC week+ would be too long and we'd have to close it early. The discussions that are going on can continue even if we shut down the "vote" part of it. -- asilvering (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe I'm also too involved to close this, but I agree that closing the survey and leaving the accompanying discussions open makes sense. —Compassionate727(T·C)22:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 288 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. –?Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 327 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727(T·C)20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727(T·C)19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I fear I gave the wrong impression. My health is in no jeopardy whatsoever, I just have intractable problems with fatigue and focus that frequently keep me from doing the things I want and intend. I appreciate your concern, though. —Compassionate727(T·C)19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 298 days ago on 18 October 2024) Expired today, last comment was three weeks ago. The consensus on this RfC appears to lean one way among the participants, but because of the high-profile and contentious nature of the change under discussion, I think an uninvolved editor should close. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 355 days ago on 22 August 2024) last vote was six weeks ago and the debate has long stabilised, outcome looks quite clear. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} by Bobby Cohn. Closure requests for RMs don't need to be posted here until it has been eight or nine days since they were opened/last relisted, since page movers generally do a pretty good job of closing simple RMs at seven days. —Compassionate727(T·C)21:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 283 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 286 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. WolverineX-eye(talk to me)07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727(T·C)14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. WolverineX-eye(talk to me)15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ?21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727(T·C)13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk·contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 ?? (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 264 days ago on 21 November 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. If successful, I can take care of sending it to the stewards. EggRoll97(talk) 20:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I haven't closed the archived request; it's unusual to edit archives, and I'm wary of editing them. But the consensus is blindingly obvious and I've edited WP:RSP accordingly. So: {{not done}}, I suppose: but sorted.—S MarshallT/C10:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 15 November 2024) There's no need for this to go on for a month. Consensus is overwhelming. Can we get an independent close please, as this is a highly contentious topic. TarnishedPathtalk12:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 327 days ago on 19 September 2024) This seems to have rujn its course, but the vote is evenly split, so it's hard to judge consensus as an involved party. Slatersteven (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 535 days ago on 25 February 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge betwee Gender inequality in China to Patriarchy in China; there have been no new comments for some weeks. There was a contested close, so another uninvolved editor familiar with policy would be helpful. Klbrain (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 261 days ago on 25 November 2024) Topic ban appeal that has been open for over two weeks. Discussion by uninvolved editors seems to have died down. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 268 days ago on 17 November 2024)
It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 254 days ago on 1 December 2024)
This might qualifiy for SNOW, as there is no support for inclusion. However, the RfC statment appears to be not neutral, and one party claimed that the RfC was premature. The main disagreement that inspired the RfC seems to have been resolved elsewhere.[3]Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 15 November 2024) This was previously closed by Compassionate727, who undid their close upon request. Last comment was 7/12/2024 and I can't see that the clear consensus is any different to when Compassionate727 closed it. Can we please get an independent close given this is a contentious topic area. TarnishedPathtalk05:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 284 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 246 days ago on 10 December 2024) With more evidence of the flag being used by the new government, consensus very quickly shifted towards option B, and I believe keeping the RfC open longer simply out of process isn't productive as pretty much everyone has come to a consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 246 days ago on 9 December 2024) Conversation seems to have winded down. It doesn't seem likely further votes will change the consensus, in my opinion.Originalcola (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 454 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 239 days ago on 16 December 2024) RFC is only 5 days old as of time of this posting, but overwhelming consensus approves of status quo, except for a single COI editor. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The CoI editor has now accepted that consensus is for the status quo, but I think a formal close from an uninvolved editor, summarizing the consensus would be helpful, since the issue has been coming up for a while and many editors were involved. — penultimate_supper ?? (talk ? contribs)16:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
yes, despite multiple posts to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, several talk page discussions, and now an RFC, I doubt the pressure to remove word oligarch from the lede of that page will stop. An appropriate close could be a useful thing to point at in the future though. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 319 days ago on 27 September 2024)
Lots of considered debate with good points made. See the nom's closing statement. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 310 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk ? {C?X})20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 258 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 247 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727(T·C)13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727(T·C)22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 230 days ago on 26 December 2024) Support vs Oppose is currently 7 to 14, consensus seems to have been reached and the discussion is heading towards dead-horse-beating territory. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 261 days ago on 25 November 2024) I request that Admins address this discussion that has been going around in circles for more than a month with no clear resolution. There is a consensus that the current article title is wrong but myriad inconclusive ideas on a solution. This is a second request for Admin help and little was accomplished the first time except false accusations. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 250 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery *it has begun...20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 258 days ago on 28 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}}. This was a bit tricky to navigate, but I feel fairly confident I've captured the views of the discussion. My talk page is available if necessary. Fieari (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 257 days ago on 29 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPathtalk11:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727(T·C)14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 253 days ago on 2 December 2024) The last comment on this was on 24 December 2024 and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. An independent closer (preferably an admin) would be welcome. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 829 days ago on 7 May 2023) Apart from two indiffed editors in the discussion, it looks like this RfC was unanimous. Worth closing out. - Amigao (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
The editors were blocked for unrelated reasons that weren't socking nor spamming. I would not exclude them; we should weigh the course of the arguments instead. Definitely needs a close, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{Done}} with the close, sorry for taking so long to mark this; I had a sudden bout of internet issues. I'll be finishing the deprecated sources procedure soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 258 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk ? contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 270 days ago on 15 November 2024)
Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate WP:SYNTH. However, the owning editor is engaging in sealioning behavior, repeatedly arguing against the consensus and dismissing others' rationale as not fitting his personal definition of synthesis; and is persistently assuming bad-faith, including opening an ANI accusing another editor of WP:STONEWALLING. When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "I provided the source, read it yourself" and then further accused that editor with bad-faith. The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be satisfied with any opposing argument supported by Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 238 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPathtalk22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 217 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy|talk!00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy|talk!23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 210 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 288 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 214 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 224 days ago on 31 December 2024) Open for just shy of a month, however, there's only been one !vote in the last week and the conclusion seems fairly straightforward. Chetsford (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 228 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 230 days ago on 25 December 2024) – The discussion has reached a point where there is some agreement in favour or acceptance of moving most of the articles concerned to 'light rail station', with the arguable exception of Camellia railway station which may be discussed separately in a pursuant discussion.
There are, however, points of disagreement but the discussion has been inactive for twenty days now.
I wish to close the discussion so as to migrate and subsequently fix up the articles to reflect the recent reopening of a formerly-disused railway line.
(Initiated 230 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 204 days ago on 21 January 2025) Clear 31-7 snowball consensus in favor of RfC, but need an uninvolved editor to be the closer, especially due to the contentious nature of the topic. BootsED (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Looks to me like a creative attempt to try to break the very long-standing logjam about the title of our article Twitter by reasoning from first principles. I don't think that discussion has an actionable outcome; I don't think it was ever meant to.—S MarshallT/C09:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
What good is there in having this closed? I guess someone could close the moratorium subsection, but I don't see the use in a close otherwise. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I can see the use in closing it. Not all RFCs are designed to enact change. Sometimes editors genuinely want new ideas and thoughts. I will undertake to personally close this in the next few days unless someone beats me to it.—S MarshallT/C14:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 263 days ago on 23 November 2024) Some late votes but otherwise this ran it's course about a month ago. CNC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 281 days ago on 4 November 2024) Proposed inclusion of America as a belligerent to the Gaza War page, originally opened on 4 November 2024. There are a lot of votes with a slight majority in favour of inclusion (unless I made a mistake in counting, so please do check). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genabab (talk ? contribs) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 835 days ago on 1 May 2023) I guess I am not allowed to close this myself as I merged the articles a few years ago.Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
{{Not done}}, I'm not closing a discussion that hasn't had a comment in a year and a half, that's too stale. If you want to split them, I'd revive the discussion or just be bold. If you don't want the split, then there's nothing to do here anyway. —Compassionate727(T·C)15:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 199 days ago on 25 January 2025) This is a lengthy discussion as it's spread across nine other sections (since closed, listed and linked). This is a high-traffic page with many new and/or one-time users, (possibly sock & meat puppets as wel), and of course edit-warring. Went the informal route to try and keep it as simple as possible. It's now been more than seven days, would like to see (hopefully an admin or very experienced closer) assess and close this. Thanks - \\'cLf13:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 199 days ago on 25 January 2025) – only one response ,unanimous consensus, previous informal discussion 3-1 in favor, seeking uninvolved editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esotericmadman (talk ? contribs) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 220 days ago on 4 January 2025) Discussion slowed down, and Legobot has removed the RFC tag. The consensus might be clear, but I'm involved. ObserveOwl (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 230 days ago on 26 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and discussion has slowed. Only one !vote since the 31/01/2025. TarnishedPathtalk09:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 400 days ago on 9 July 2024) The RfC has expired a while ago. I did not know about closure requests (thanks @Nardog: for the notification). --mach??????11:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 183 days ago on 10 February 2025) The question is whether to rename the article on a recent NBA trade from Luka Don?i?–Anthony Davis trade to Luka Don?i? trade because Don?i? is considered the more valuable player in the deal. The most recent discussion was opened 7 days ago, but the dispute actually began 12 days ago. Nobody has voted in five days. By my count, the votes are currently 7 Keep, 3 Move, with some cogent arguments being made on both sides. Could we please get an independent closer to determine the consensus? Thank you. Namelessposter (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 234 days ago on 21 December 2024) This was on ANRFC earlier today and I closed it, but I've reverted my closure. I'm bringing this back and asking my fellow wikipedians to please send someone with actual experience this time. guninvalid (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 208 days ago on 16 January 2025) This has another week to run but it's fairly lengthy and new comments have dried up, so anyone interested in doing the close may want some time to read through the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested?@? °?t°16:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 207 days ago on 17 January 2025) Limited discussion, and no new comments in over a week. I doubt extra time will result in any additional comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested?@? °?t°13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 202 days ago on 22 January 2025) Limited discussion, and no new comments in over a week. I doubt extra time will result in any additional comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested?@? °?t°13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 196 days ago on 29 January 2025) Discussion on how the opening paragraph should list the name "Allahabad". Last constructive comment was 6 days ago ????????Abo Yemen (??)09:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 225 days ago on 30 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and last !vote was 6 days ago. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPathtalk00:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 250 days ago on 5 December 2024) Open for almost 3 months, discussion has been untouched for two months. I think now is a good time to close. Interstellarity (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 219 days ago on 5 January 2025)
Hasn't since any discussion since the end of January; it's as dead as a doornail. Should've been closed as no consensus a while ago. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@Klbrain, this discussion wandered off all over the place and I don't see that a fruitful discussion was had on whether to merge the two articles. Is a close really required? TarnishedPathtalk11:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
My view is that a close is always warranted if the discussion has ceased. It may be, of course, that that summary is no consensus (on the merge) with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 245 days ago on 10 December 2024) This discussion has been going on for at least three months and consensus has been reached. Please solve the backlog. AsaQuathern (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 243 days ago on 12 December 2024) Was archived due to inactivity, then unarchived [5]. Please assess whether there is consensus in the discussion for anything at all. Some1 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Partly done. A note for closers, whether or not to use AI for images of BLPs has been closed with the answer of "no". The question is currently whether there is a consensus for a total ban. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply)22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Chess "The question is currently whether there is a consensus for a total ban."
(Initiated 199 days ago on 25 January 2025) This is a lengthy discussion as it's spread across a dozen other sections (all since closed, listed and linked). This is a high-traffic page with many new and/or one-time users, (possibly sock & meat puppets as well), and of course edit-warring. Went the informal route to try and keep it as simple as possible. It's now been more than two weeks, would like to see (hopefully) an admin or experienced editor assess and close this. Thanks - \\'c?F23:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 221 days ago on 3 January 2025) While unanimous after 55 days so far, a non-participating editor was opposed in a previous discussion partly because they challenged the validity of a RSN RfC about the same publication at issue here. An experienced Wikipedia editor should close this discussion. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 203 days ago on 22 January 2025) Open for over a month. Since I've been involved in this discussion (and other related discussions elsewhere), and since this is a particularly contentious topic, requesting an experienced uninvolved editor to judge consensus and close it. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I went to see if this was an easy close for an inexperienced closer like me. It is not. There’s a complexity here with some procedural objections. If the procedural objections are valid, care must be given so as not to appear to support the fringe theory in question. Dw31415 (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Given my previous experiences closing RfCs, I'll take my time with this one. I've already come to a conclusion but I'll try to be better-reasoned about this. Someone else is welcome to come in and close in the meantime, but I'll give myself a day or two and some time to reread and see if I still agree with my conclusion. guninvalid (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 182 days ago on 11 February 2025) Moratorium proposal following multiple discussions (including a RFC and RMs) about whether the article name should be changed to "Gulf of America" or whether that should be included in the lead. Last !vote was 28/02/2025. TarnishedPathtalk02:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath would you please add a link to what a Wikipedia discussion moratorium is? I ask because I’m not familiar with the concept and it might be beneficial to others who see this as well. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@Chetsford, would you please elaborate on why you view this as an easy close? If you're willing to accept "C" as you mentioned, then I agree. If you're asking a closer to weigh the consensus in this RfC versus the consensus discussion on the criteria for enclosure, that might be a little more difficult. Dw31415 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
"would you please elaborate on why you view this as an easy close" It seems clear beyond need of explanation to me that it's a consensus C close. That said, anyone who feels that it would be unreasonably difficult for them to close should, of course, feel empowered not to do so without any fear of angst or torment. Whether or not I "accept" C is immaterial as Chetsford is not the King of Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Chetsford, it’s very clear that “C” (which establishes new criteria for inclusion) is the predominant view. I find “C” a little troublesome because it exceeds to scope of the RfC question. Do you have any thoughts for the eventual closer on how to handle this? Dw31415 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
In general, RfCs are a little like grand juries. A grand jury can end-up indicting someone entirely other than the person requested by the prosecutor ... similarly, in an RfC, the community can arrive at any consensus it likes about just about any topic. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Doing... I’m new to closing and request another uninvolved editor to review the draft I’ve provided at the top of the RfC. Specifically, many of the respondents call for eliminating the potential candidates section entirely. A potential option that I’m too inexperienced to assess whether this RfC should be modified to focus on that broader question or if it should be left to involved editors to raise a new RfC on that question. Dw31415 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 192 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion is dormant after running its course after a brief while. Ripe for an uncontroversial close. guninvalid (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 166 days ago on 28 February 2025) This case is ready for administrative resolution and should be addressed promptly, as it could impact multiple recent closures. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 154 days ago on 12 March 2025) – I know this looks like a lot but it's actually going to be an incredibly easy close on a simple merge proposal. As of datestamp, five of six editors either support Option C, or have said they can live with Option C. Chetsford (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
— Chris Woodrich (talk)...
Relisted since discussion is needed. Cremastra — talk — c 20:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Partly done. A note for closers, whether or not to use AI for images of BLPs has been closed with the answer of "no". The question is currently whether there is a consensus for a total ban. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
_by_ól?f_Pálsdóttir.jpg){kind=link}