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 23:24, 18 April 2013 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits restored archiving; these are old and cluttering the page← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:33, 13 January 2025 edit undoGoodDay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers495,111 edits →Requests for comment 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}<!--
<!--

---------------------------------------------------------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the corresponding section of this page and not here. New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
---------------------------------------------------------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-->
--></noinclude>
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
<includeonly>{{TOC limit|3}}</includeonly>
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
<noinclude>{{adminbacklog}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
]
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{Archive basics
| algo = old(40d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 7 |counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| maxarchivesize = 500K
|maxsize = 256000
| archiveheader =
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 0
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=40}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
|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 ]).

] '''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, ] 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 ] (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 {{tl|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A ] can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.


]
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
</noinclude>
<includeonly>
==Requests for closure==
:''This section is ] from ].''</includeonly>
The '''Requests for closure noticeboard''' is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor ] on Misplaced Pages. Most discussions do not need formal closure.


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 RfC ] discussed how to appeal RfC closures and whether an administrator should summarily overturn a non-administrator's RfC closure.


'''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}}
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/>
<center>'''Please post new requests at the ''end'' of the appropriate section(s).'''</center>
<noinclude>{{TOC limit|3}} {{TOC limit|4}}
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
==Requests for closure==
* ]
</noinclude>
* ]
===Article namespace===
* ]
<!--If the section becomes empty, then add "* None currently."-->
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
====]====
<!--
The consensus has already reached. --] (]) 13:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
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
====]====
This RM about moving Atlanta neighborhoods to comma disambiguation, rather than parenthetical, seems to have narrow support. Discussion has been complicated by a few of the neighborhoods having other issues involved. Either way, the RM has run for over a month, and it's been almost a week since anyone commented there. I think it's time for a close. --] (]) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (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 -->
We would appreciate it if someone could please make a decision about this merger.] (]) 09:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


=== ]===
====]====
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (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 ==
Issues of WP:SYN and WP:OR have been highly controversial in this article. I am requesting closure for that reason, even though I think consensus is rather clear.] (]) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
<!--
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
====]====
The merger proposal has become obsolete, as one of the articles has been deleted after an AfD discussion. Still, someone uninvolved should formally close it, as the issue is a bit politically/ethno/religiously loaded. --] (]) 18:50, 17 April 2013 (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. ***
====]====
-->
Would an experienced '''admininstrator''' assess the consensus and close as resolved or abandoned at ]. This may be a difficult closure due to the editor issues involved and advice regarding the behavior of the two main editors, ] and ], would be appreciated.<br />This RfC has been somewhat compromised by a supporting editor canvassing a large number of editors and asking them to vote in . This editor was warned not to canvass but continued, justifying it as a request to vote per ] with no knowledge on his part as to how they would vote. This editor has also posted a competing RfC with the question reframed to encourage a "support" vote. Three editors (two supporters and one who voted to abandon) want the RfC abandoned due to the above issues rather than have it closed as resolved. However, despite these problems only two of the canvassed editors voted (both in support) which has not significantly impacted on the survey result which is currently seven votes for oppose, three votes for support and one vote for abandon with no further votes made in the last seven days. Closure will require significant patience on the part of the closing admin as the discussion currently runs to 25 pages. ] (]) 19:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===Misplaced Pages namespace===
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->


====]==== ===] ===
Last comment was c. one week ago, and was a question on whether the discussion should be closed. ] (]) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (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)
:{{Done}} ] (]) 22:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
:would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. ] (]) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons====
{{Initiated|19:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)}} RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. ] (]) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
A two part discussion on flag use in sports related articles found ] and ]. ] (]) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}}
Clear consensus that the proposed edit (and its amended version) violate ]. However, the owning editor is engaging in ] 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 . When finally challenged to give a direct quote from the source that supports the proposed edit, it was dismissed with "" and then The discussion is being driven into a ground by an editor who does not (nor wish to) understand consensus and can't be ] with any opposing argument supported by Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --] (]) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} {{u|ThomasO1989}}; please note that any future closing requests on this page should be neutrally worded. ] (]) 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ] ===
Could someone please close this discussion&nbsp;— it has been running for a month and is completely deadlocked with no chance of consensus. ] (]) 21:38, 15 March 2013 (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)
:{{a note}} Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. ] (]) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{Initiated| 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 December 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:{{Done}} {{Ping|User:Happily888}} ] (]) 14:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:: Archived to ]. ] (]) 04:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
:That link has been archived, is it now too late to close it? See also:
:*]
:*]
::—] (]) 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*I second this request for a closing.&nbsp; Are the technical people still working on this?&nbsp; This is an ongoing point of contention at AfD, because AfD gets discussions for which there is no theoretical case for deletion.&nbsp; It would help for someone to close this discussion, or at least summarize the opinion and clarify the current technical status of implementation.&nbsp; ] (]) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{Initiated| 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)|done=no}}, RFC expired weeks ago. ] (]) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
This discussion has been dormant for over a month. Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus in the discussion? ]] (]) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:CLosed by JzG. ] (]) 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


=== Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading ===
====]====
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Discussion started more than a month ago with no contributions for over two weeks. I'm involved, but someone should put it out of its misery. ] (]) 20:09, 22 March 2013 (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.


-->
====]====
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 20 March 2013)? Please see also ], where an editor said he asked at ] for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


== Deletion discussions ==
Without noticing this section, I posted a comment below (at 08:53, 23 March 2013) which I now fold into this section: "Could an uninvolved administrator close ]? It's more than a month old. It's also—fair warning—really long." I see that an admin has now review the RFC. Thanks! ] (]) 18:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
{{XFD backlog|right}}
=== ] ===
{{initiated|00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


====]==== === ] ===
{{initiated|23:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (]) 04:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


=== ] ===
====]====
{{initiated|02:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
This was recently archived to ]. I've restored it because the discussion wasn't closed. Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">-- ]</span> (]) 07:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


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


== Other types of closing requests ==
Can these be closed as '''keep''' per consensus and moved to a subpage of ]? ''''']]''''' 00:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
<!--
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.
====]====
Can someone assess the discussion and make an appropriate closing decision? -- ] ] 15:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:{{done}} -- ] (]) 19:10, 18 April 2013 (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. ***
====]====
-->
Can an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus at ]? Thanks, ] (] - ]) 14:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


===]===
===Other namespaces===
{{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)
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->


===]===
====]====
{{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)
now open for over three weeks. ] (]) 15:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
*''' TfD should be relisted ''' - This TfD has now been open for '''over 30 days''', and should at a minimum be relisted to generate more feedback. --] (]) 18:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


====]==== ===]===
{{initiated|7 November 2024}} Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. ] (]) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if an uninvolved editor would close this informal RfC (opened 23 March) regarding whether ]'s indefinite ban should be lifted. The arbitration committee ] in February 2012, and last month rejected Will's appeal against it. The issue may proceed to a formal request to the committee, so it would be helpful to have a summary of the RfC's consensus on the various issues. Many thanks, ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
:I read part of the page with a thought toward closing it, but what's the point? The discussion has already moved on to so closing the RFC in the userspace page will not help. ] (]) 04:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


* {{a note}} I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. ] (]) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::As I said, there might be a formal approach to the arbcom, so it would help if someone completely uninvolved in past disputes with Will, BASC, or any of the individual arbs, would close and sum up the RfC. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


===]===
===Premature close requests===
{{initiated|23:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}} 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. ] (]/]) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
<!--If the section becomes empty, than add "* None currently."-->


=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===
<!-- Page footers -->
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 21:33, 13 January 2025

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
"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,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Archiving icon
    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 31 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 29 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 97 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 77 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)
    would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

    (Initiated 68 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Team Seas#Re: the ocean pollution additions

    (Initiated 59 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 Misplaced Pages policy or guidelines. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

     Done ThomasO1989; please note that any future closing requests on this page should be neutrally worded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Israel#RfC

    (Initiated 51 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)

    information Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Wicked (2024 film)#RfC on whether credited name or common name should be used

    (Initiated 33 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

     Done @Happily888: guninvalid (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

    (Initiated 66 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
    CfD 0 0 3 39 42
    TfD 0 0 0 4 4
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 5 6 11
    RfD 0 0 28 35 63
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 20#Category:Belarusian saints

    (Initiated 24 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages

    (Initiated 12 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

    Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance

    (Initiated 12 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (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 110 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 76 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:Israel–Hamas war#Survey

    (Initiated 67 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

    • information Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

    Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

    (Initiated 16 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)

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

    Categories: