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 10:30, 12 May 2012 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,269 edits →Misplaced Pages: requests for comment/Wtshymanski: collapsed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:42, 28 December 2024 edit undoTarnishedPath (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers17,295 edits →Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{no admin backlog}}
== Requests for closure ==
<!--
<includeonly>:This section is transcluded from ].</includeonly>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
<noinclude>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
{{adminbacklog}}
-->
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
{{archive box|box-width=250px|
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
image=]|
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
:'''], ]'''
]
{{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 256000
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
</noinclude>
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
<!-- IF EMPTY, PLEASE PLACE THIS LINE BELOW:
|format= %%i
|age=4368
|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}}
|headerlevel=3
|maxarchsize=256000
|minkeepthreads=0
|numberstart=16
}}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}
{{Shortcut|WP:CR|WP:RFCL|WP:ANRFC}}


<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 ]).
*''There are no requests for closure''


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
PLACE REQUEST FOR CLOSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST -->


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.
=== ] ===


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
This has been open for a couple of months now, partly because of a long wait for a foundation legal opinion, but discussion has pretty much stopped and this needs closing. I started it so am involved and Moonriddengirl was involved in her WMF role so can't close either. I'd hope to be able to find a image copyright admin to talk a look but a post to ] has yielded no responses so bringing here. ] (]) 16:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


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'''.
===]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] and its sub-proposals? Would an admin also implement the consensus by filing a ]? ] (]) 05:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
*Discussion was archived at ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub><font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 10:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


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.
===]===
RfC on merge, please assist in closing. Thanks. ] (]) 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


] '''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'''.
===]===
Would someone be so kind as to close out this RFC? ] (]) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


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.
=== ] ===
Could someone close this RfC? It's rather malformed, being put on the main noticeboard, instead of the talkpage, and seems to have fairly clear consensus. ] (]) 05:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
*Discussion was archived to ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub><font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 10:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


]
=== RFC at ] ===
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the RFC at ]?--] (]) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


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.
=== ] ===
The proposal is standing for a couple of years already.] (]) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


'''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.
=== ] ===
{{cot|title=Technical instructions for closers}}
This has been awaiting closure for over a month and it's been about a week and a half since the last comment. I've taken part in the discussion so can't close it myself. ] (]) 12:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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}}
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
There are three oppositions and two supports. However, opposition begs chances, while supporters do not want to give chances. --] (]) 18:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== 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
Does not appear to be anywhere near a close result - but would an unilvlved admin kindly close it? 3 appear to consider the Tea Party to be properly mentioned (even if it is not deemed Radical Right) while 11 deem it improperly in the article. Thanks. ] (]) 18:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub><font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 12:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


*** 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 -->
This was an RfC to decide whether there's consensus to add the subject's surname to the article, against his wishes (it was his ] and he rejects it). The RfC closed after 30 days. TuckerResearch concluded that around 22 users (who were not single-purpose accounts) wanted to add the name, and 14 wanted to omit. Further discussion ]. Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 06:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


=== ]===
===]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
An unclosed deletion review.—] <small>]/]</small> 14:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
=== ] ===
*closed ] (]) 11:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
{{initiated|18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]/]) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


===]=== == Requests for comment ==
<!--
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
A proposed basis of closure was made by a neutral third party on 30 April . This was accepted by TPH . Since then there has been no objection and only a few minor edits to the project. The whole project is more than two months old and I would say that all the key points have been made. ] (]) 15:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
:As one of the participants, I concur with this assessment. ] (]) 07:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:*'''closed'''. ] (]) 12:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


*** 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. ***
=== ]===
-->


=== ] ===
In my opinion there are consensus among uninvolved admins on some kind of short term sanction either block for a week or one one month topic ban.--] (]) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 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)
{{collapse top|1=Wrong forum, requests to delete pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace must be made at ]. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)}}
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Per the header, this RFC should have been deleted about seven days ago. There is really only one "certifier". There appears to be a second, Guy Macon, but in the "Views" section he states "I am not involved in the current dispute", which means he shouldn't have made himself a certifier. ] (]) 03:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>


===]===
:'''Oppose'''. Jeh posted the above closure request without giving me time to reply to his concerns (Three minutes between bringing his concerns up at the RfV/U and posting this closure request). I was not involved in the specific incident leading up to this RfC/U, but I ''have'' attempted to resolve the specific incident (which I was not involved in prior to my attempts to resolve it). Specifically, I once again urged Wtshymanski on his talk page to discuss his behavior and attempt to come to an agreement on what is and is not acceptable. My comments were deleted without response, thus I believe that I have tried and failed to resolve the specific conflict that triggered this RfC/U.
{{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)
:The original poster of this RfC (an inexperienced IP editor, so we should cut him some slack about properly crafting his complaint) complained about a long-running pattern of behavior and a specific incident that highlights the pattern of behavior. I certified that I had previously tried to resolve the long-running pattern of behavior and that I have now tried to resolve the specific incident.
:{{Doing}} <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{yo|Compassionate727}} Still working on this? — ]&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—]&nbsp;<sup>(]·])</sup></span> 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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)


=== ] ===
:] conduct says that the purpose of the RFC/U is to "Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct". That is what is happening here. There is a lively discussion going on, and Wtshymanski himself just recently decided to respond - a major breakthrough from someone who regularly deletes any attempts to discuss his behavior. The RfC/U is productive should be allowed to continue. --] (]) 07:02, 10 May 2012 (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)


===]===
::There is now a third certifier. If you want I can ask a dozen editors to try to resolve this same dispute so we can watch them fail. After years and years of pissing everyone off and multiple complaints on multiple noticeboards, Wtshymanski has yet to engage in a meaningful conversation about his behavior. He deletes most attempts at communicating with him -- usually with no comment but occasionally with a sarcastic comment. I can show you many examples if you wish. --] (]) 11:28, 11 May 2012 (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)


=== ] ===
* '''Oppose''' The only reason this isn't a dogpile on W's long-running and unacceptable editing behaviour is that he's so obstinate he has simply outlasted most of those who've encountered him. A moment's searching of the usual suspect boards will show what an utter pain he has been to many people already, not just for this issue. I haven't commented because I really am too busy at present. ] (]) 12:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
{{initiated|16:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}} ] (]) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


=== ] ===
===]===
{{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)
Would an admin close and summarize ]? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|04:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)}} Legobot has removed the RFC tag and the last comment was a couple of days ago. Can we please get a independent close. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize ]? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (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)
Would an admin close and summarize ]? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (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)
:{{done}}. @]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
===] and another DRV===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Would an admin (or admins) close ] and ]? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
<!-- 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 ==
===] and other MfDs===
{{XFD backlog|right}}
Would an admin (or admins) close:
=== ] ===
#]
{{initiated|00:52, 30 October 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)
#]
=== ] ===
Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (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)
=== Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}


== Other types of closing requests ==
===]===
<!--
Please close ], thanks!! &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).
:{{cross}} '''Not done,''' thirty days have not yet elapsed, and the latest comment is only four days old. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

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|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)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

===]===
{{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|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|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}}

Latest revision as of 11:42, 28 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 14 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

    (Initiated 12 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 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 81 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 61 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 48 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)

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

    (Initiated 44 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 42 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)

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

    (Initiated 37 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 35 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)

    Talk:Matt Gaetz#RFC: Accusations of child sex trafficking and statutory rape in the lead

    (Initiated 30 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. TarnishedPath 10:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

    (Initiated 19 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)
     Done. @RachelTensions. TarnishedPath 11:42, 28 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 44 44
    TfD 0 0 0 3 3
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 1 1 2
    RfD 0 0 4 46 50
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

    (Initiated 59 days ago on 30 October 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 30 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 25 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 22 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 19 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 94 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 73 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 70 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 60 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 52 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 31 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)

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

    (Initiated 26 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: