Misplaced Pages

:Closure requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:02, 21 December 2021 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Piotrus,_User:Volunteer_Marek,_and_Haaretz: Referred to arbitration← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:21, 27 December 2024 edit undoPaine Ellsworth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors255,640 edits →Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs: "close" template so bot can archive 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{no admin backlog}} {{no admin backlog}}
<!-- <!--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Line 5: Line 5:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--> -->
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], or ]}} {{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }} {{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
] ]
{{Archive basics {{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 33 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}} |archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 256000 |maxsize = 256000
Line 18: Line 19:
|format= %%i |format= %%i
|age=4368 |age=4368
|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{xXxX</nowiki> --> |archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{notdone,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{tick,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
|header={{Aan}} |header={{Aan}}
|headerlevel=4 |headerlevel=3
|maxarchsize=256000 |maxarchsize=256000
|minkeepthreads=0 |minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16 |numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}} }}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC|WP:RFCLOSE}} {{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


<section begin=Instructions/>The '''Closure requests''' noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] on Misplaced Pages. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus appears unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a ]. <section begin=Instructions/>Use the '''closure requests noticeboard''' to ask an uninvolved editor to ]. Do so when ] appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our ]).


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
]
'''Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.'''


Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, ] to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
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. The default length of a formal ] is 30 days (opened on or before '''{{#time:j F Y|-30 days}}'''); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is ], so that there is enough time for a full discussion.


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
On average, it takes two or three weeks after a discussion has ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by ''not'' requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.


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'''.
]
'''If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here'''; be sure to include a link to the discussion itself. ''Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question''. A ] is available to make listing discussions easier.


There is no fixed length for a formal ] (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.
If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters '''on the closer's talk page''', and, ''if necessary'', request a ] at the ]. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.


] '''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'''.
See ] for previous closure reviews.


Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{tl|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] 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.'''


]
Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''


Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if ]. You should be familiar with all ] that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the ] 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.
A ] from February of 2013 discussed the process for appealing a closure and whether or not an administrator could summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus of that discussion was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for ] and ]—see ] and ] for details.


'''Non-admins can close ''most'' discussions'''. ] your ] 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 ], or where implementing the closure ]. ] and ] processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{tlx|Close}} or {{tlx|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{tlx|Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx|Initiated}} template with {{para|done|yes}}. ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx|Already done}}, {{tlx|Close}}, {{tlx|Done}} {{tlx|Not done}}, and {{tlx|Resolved}}.<section end=Instructions/>
{{cot|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
Please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx|Close}} or {{tlx|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx|Not done}}. '''After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx|Initiated}} template with {{para|done|yes}}.''' ] will ] requests marked with {{tlx|Already done}}, {{tlx|Close}}, {{tlx|Done}} {{tlx|Not done}}, and {{tlx|Resolved}}.
{{cob}}
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].

<section end=Instructions/>
{{TOC limit|4}} {{TOC limit|4}}
]

== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Requests for closure == == Administrative discussions ==
<!-- <!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|date here}} template when placing a request here
Please add new requests to the ''bottom'' of the appropriate section! If none of the sections apply, you may need to add one, since the section heading may have been deleted or hidden. The "initiated date" should be the date the discussion began, not when the closure request is made. Thanks!


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! &nbsp;Let a bot do it. &nbsp;Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
-->
Place new administrative discussions below this line using a level 3 heading -->
{{See also|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}
<!--Please add new backlog requests to the appropriate section! Thanks!-->

=== Administrative discussions ===
====]====
{{initiated|00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)|type=block}} A spillover from an original RfC that concerns the question whether said users had any business removing a specific article, where ] narrative is presented, among others. The discussion was preemptively closed by {{u|Hemiauchenia}} because it became ]. An administrative close would be welcome. (The same concerns the two other discussions, and about the same content). It would be best to have a separate editor to close each of these discussions. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
: {{tq|1=Standard COIN discussion that deteriorated quickly into PAs. The closure by an involved editor was challenged, 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. ] (]) 11:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)}}
: {{re|Szmenderowiecki}} This is actually the ''fourth'' discussion on that matter in the last four months, the first (?) being . ] (]) 12:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


=== ]===
* I have . If four discussions can't get to the bottom of it, it's time for the Committee to have a look. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] ] 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


====Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading ==== ===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


=== Requests for comment === == Requests for comment ==
<!-- <!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top) Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
-->


*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
==== ] ====
-->


=== ] ===
{{initiated|15:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)}} This RSN discussion has been archived without being closed. Due to the high impact of the source this deserves a formal close. ] (]) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (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.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 12:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
:::] - Didn't the ], 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? ] (]) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
::::Maybe advertise it on WP:CENT?—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 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. ] (]) 09:05, 21 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 ]. (noting, for the record, it was already advertised to ]). "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. ] (]) 12:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
* '''Note''': The discussion has been relisted and removed from archive. It can be found here: ]. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
*:I fixed the heading to reflect this. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
====]====
{{initiated|13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)|type=rfc}} 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. ––] ] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 19:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
{{discussion top|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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="background-color:#20B2AA;padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px">] <span style="color:#fff">&#8258;</span> ]</span> 20:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
* Just don't close, until after the RFC-template expires. ] (]) 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. ––] ] <sup><span style="border-radius:7em;padding:1.75px 3.25px;background:#005bed;font-size:80%">]</span></sup> 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
*:FWIW {{ping|FormalDude}}, this closure request is in the wrong place. We're posting about an RFC, not WP:AN discussion. ] (]) 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
*::Corrected. ''''']'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>10:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)</small>
* 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. ] (]) 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. -] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] reviews the exceptions) ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
**::In solid agreement with ]. -] (]) 09:40, 9 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages about subjects related to the rights of trans persons. -] (]) 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! ]<sup>]</sup> 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 ] to request volunteers for said panel (it's a better venue than here for that purpose). ] (]) 12:27, 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
*I just hope however it's closed, there'll be no protesting over the result. ] (]) 06:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
*:That's why to wait the full 30 days and use a panel of closers. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 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 ] or ] 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 ]) in the unlikely event the closer you find does a bad job. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]​</span> 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.—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 10:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}


=== ] ===
==== ] ====
{{initiated|22:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. ] (]) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Initiated|14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)}} 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''. ] (]) 22:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
:{{a 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. ] (]) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:: <small>And in true ] fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. ] (]) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:<s><nowiki>{{doing}}</nowiki></s> ] (]/]) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::Oops; I put this in the wrong section. ] (]/]) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


===] ===
==== ] ====
{{Initiated|11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)}} Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


===]===
{{Initiated|19:52, 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. ] (] &#124; ]) @ 20:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
{{Initiated|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. ] (]) 03:09, 2 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. <span class="nowrap">] (]) <small>(please ] me on reply)</small></span> 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading ====
:{{Doing}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
::{{yo|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
:::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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a |type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. |type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Intiated/doc for a list of codes.
::::Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 00:52, 19 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. ] (]) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{Initiated|18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to ] (]) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* {{close}}. ] (]) 21:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub></span> 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{Initiated|18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}} This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} Very wide impact, not much heat. ] (]) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

* {{close}} – Consensus seems clear, I don't think my Indian-ness poses a ] here, closed. ] (]) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|22:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{Initiated|22:51, 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.] (]) 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
<!-- Place this line below the heading:
{{Initiated|<date and time when RfC was opened, in the format as would be produced by ~~~~~>}}
If the discussion is not an RfC (which is the default), add a |type=xxx code for the discussion type, e.g. |type=drv for deletion review; see Template:Initiated/doc for a list of codes.
-->


=== Deletion discussions === == Deletion discussions ==
{{XFD backlog|right}} {{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|13:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|21:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ====
{{initiated|23:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|16:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} 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. ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)|type=xfd}} ] ] 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading ==== === Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


=== Other types of closing requests === == Other types of closing requests ==
<!-- <!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top). Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here. Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here.

*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
--> -->
==== ] ====
{{Initiated|01:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)|type=mrv}} – Title of this section was ]. ''''']'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>11:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)</small> – Please review (that discussion) --] (]) 14:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


===]===
{{U|Paine Ellsworth}}, the initial discussion subject to the move review has been archied and the link you have given to the TP is to a subsequent discussion. A close is requested for the move review. ] (]) 03:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
{{initiated|25 September 2024}} Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{to|Cinderella157}} yes thank you, that is correct. It was that subsequent discussion that was originally brought here to WP:CR to be closed. The collapsed discussion below hopefully explains what inspired the header change of this section from the subsequent discussion to the move review. ''''']'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>05:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)</small>
<hr width=20%>
:''']'''
:{{Initiated|13:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)}}
{{cot|Previous discussion|width=92%}}
:Anyone considering closing this should consider, or at least be aware of, ]. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] 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. --] (]) 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. ] 23:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
::::''' Reply '''- Fair enough, then we can close the move request tomorrow. --] (]) 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 ] 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 :-) ] 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. --] (]) 01:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry too, I think I misread your earlier comments. Glad we're on the same page :-) ] 01:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
{{cob}}


=== ] ===
* To avoid inconsistent results, and to avoid further wastage of time and effort, please close ] first, and depending on how that goes, ] may be rendered moot. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I suggest the closing admin read both discussions and form their own view as to the order in which they should be closed. ] (]) 19:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
*''' Comment '''- I second Jones' request. --] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


===]===
==== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading ====
{{initiated|14:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}} This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. ] (]) 03:06, 1 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{initiated|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. ]] 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

===] ===
{{initiated| 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |type=rm}} RM that has been open for over a month. ] (]) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

===] ===
{{initiated|16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)|type=mrv}} ] ] 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{initiated|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} 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. ] (] • ]) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{initiated|15:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)}} Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ ] (]) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{Doing}} ] (]) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
===]===
{{initiated|00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)|type=drv}} ] ] 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}} {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
]

Latest revision as of 02:21, 27 December 2024

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Archives

    Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39


    This page has archives. Sections older than 182 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III.
    Shortcuts

    Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages 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.

    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 {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

    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

    Administrative discussions

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

    (Initiated 13 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

    (Initiated 10 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

    Requests for comment

    Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

    (Initiated 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

    Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

    (Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    information 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)
    And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    {{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

    (Initiated 59 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

    information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

    (Initiated 47 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 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)
     Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 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  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:52, 19 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)

    Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

    (Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

    (Initiated 41 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)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

    (Initiated 40 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

    (Initiated 36 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 34 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

    (Initiated 18 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  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 26 26
    TfD 0 0 0 11 11
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 1 6 7
    RfD 0 0 9 67 76
    AfD 0 0 0 6 6

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

    (Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

    (Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Lu Tianna

    (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Shen an calhar

    (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

    (Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Clock/calendar

    (Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 14#File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

    (Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG ==

    (Initiated 24 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

    (Initiated 21 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)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

    (Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg

    (Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

    (Initiated 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

    (Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

    (Initiated 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 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  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 59 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. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

    (Initiated 51 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film)

    (Initiated 48 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 29 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)

    Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

    (Initiated 29 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)

     Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

    (Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

    Categories: