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 11:10, 17 January 2014 editArmbrust (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers325,696 edits →Talk:Riga supermarket roof collapse#List of deceased: Paragraph of bulleted points in columns?: done← 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}}
<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 this page and not here.
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
----------------------------------------------------------
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--></noinclude><includeonly>{{TOC limit|3}}</includeonly><noinclude>
-->
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
| algo = old(40d)
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive %(counter)d
]
| counter = 7
{{Archive basics
| maxarchivesize = 500K
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader =
|counter = 37
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
| minthreadsleft = 0
|maxsize = 256000
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=40}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}</noinclude><includeonly>
|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 ]).
==Requests for closure==
:''This section is ] from ].''</includeonly>
<noinclude>The '''Requests for closure 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 remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications.


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
Please note that '''most discussions do not need formal closure'''. Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion, provided the discussion has been open long enough for a consensus to form. The default length of an RfC is 30 days (opened on or before '''{{#time:j|-30 days}} {{#time:F|-30 days}} {{#time:Y|-30 days}}'''); where consensus becomes clear before that and discussion is not ongoing, the discussion can be closed earlier, although it should not be closed if the discussion was open less than seven days ago (posted after '''{{#time:j|-7 days}} {{#time:F|-7 days}} {{#time:Y|-7 days}}''') except in the case of ].


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.
Please ensure that your request here for a close is neutrally worded, and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question. If there is disagreement with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. You can start discussion at the original page or request a ] at ] with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See ] for previous closure reviews.


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
;Notes about closing
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.


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'''.
A ] discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus 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.


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.
{{TOC limit|3}}


] '''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'''.
==Requests for closure==
</noinclude>
{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Backlog|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion|Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure|Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions|Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion#Old discussions|Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files#Holding cell|Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business}}


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.
===] and ]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 24 October 2013)? Although the RfC has only two participants, previous discussions on the talk page have had significant participation:
:#] (initiated 24 August 2013)
:#] (initiated 22 October 2013)
:#] (initiated 22 October 2013)
My recommendation to the closer is to make the later sections on the talk page (], ], and ]) subsections of the earlier section about the dispute ]. Then please consider the arguments made in all the sections and determine the consensus (or lack of it).<p>The dispute is about the phrasing in the lead sentence (describing the subject as a "free-speech activist", "free-speech advocate", and/or "human rights activist"). Thanks, ] (]) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
:Here's the complicating factor IMO: IMO (based on my recollection which could be wrong) the "stable version" said "Mark Steyn is... a self-described free-speech activist", and since "self-described" has too much of a "so-called" vibe, pretty much nobody wants that. This was changed to "Mark Steyn is... a free-speech activist", but IMO that's not a valid stable version (it was let stand by me and others to avoid warring over the matter; that is, there was no consensus to replace "self-described free-speech activist" with "free-speech activist" as opposed to replacing "self-described free-speech activist" with nothing, it just ended that way randomly because the "replace 'self-described free-speech activist' with nothing" faction didn't wish to battle over the matter.)


]
:So IMO looking at it and saying "no consensus, keep current stable version" won't work here. Somebody, somehow, has to decide between these two lede openings:
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
:*{{xt|"'''Mark Steyn''' (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer, conservative political commentator and free speech activist."}}
:*{{xt|"'''Mark Steyn''' (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer and conservative political commentator."}}
:I summed this up at ''']''', hopefully fairly and helpfully. Reading that will give a quick and (I hope) fair overview. Since we see a 5-5-2 (or maybe 6-6) split in headcount, it looks like our options are to run ''another'' (properly listed) RfC on this fairly trivial matter, or for some uninvolved person to decide based on strength of argument. (I hope that the person deciding would consider best practices for ledes generally and what we do with similar articles, but that's up to her.) It can be done in about an hour or so is my guess. ] (]) 15:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
:If it helps motivate anyone, I just cleared the second-oldest entry on this list, so maybe someone will help us out on this one? ] (]) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (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.
===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 November 2013)? The opening poster wrote: <blockquote>There have been various discussions over the last few months both on this talk page and at ] <small>], ]</small> (and probably elsewhere, I can't remember!), resulting in a ], and subsequent overturning of the "merge" decision to "no censensus" at ]. We seem to be at a stalemate situation, with one group of editors fully supporting a merge, and another dead against it, and to be frank, it has turned a little nasty. We really need wider views on this, but I hope any editor wishing to contribute here will take the time to read the previous history and fully take into account the points raised by both sides in the past. It may be a good idea for us editors who have been most active in the previous discussions to take minimal part in this one, in order to have some fresh opinions given, and to avoid the same spiral we have been going down. Points that should be addressed should consider whether there is a necessity to have separate articles, or whether a single umbrella article will do, and if multiple articles are deemed necessary, how these should be named with regard to ]. Thanks!</blockquote> Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (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}}
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Should the website of a known trolling and hacking group be included in this article and does it or could it present a serious security risk to Misplaced Pages viewers and editors and therefore should be removed?" A participant wrote: <blockquote>This RfC after ], an ], ], and ]) ...</blockquote> An RfC close will hopefully resolve this dispute which has been occurring since at least November 2012 (see ]). Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (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}}.
:'''Note''': The discussion was "closed" by ] on 11 December 2013 with no comments or interpretations of consensus. Thibbs' edit summary reads: "Closing expired RfC without comment or summary. Someone else can add that if it's felt to be necessary." ] was a part of the discussion and his close should probably be reverted per ] and then the RFC closed appropriately. There has been no discussion since 20 November 2013. -- ]]. 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
{{cob}}
::'''Objection''': Hi ] and others. I just wanted to note that I object to the idea that any of my edits have implicated ]. We should be clear here that I'm not an admin and that I wasn't performing any kind of administrative action. As noted above, the RfC had already expired and when I there hadn't been a comment in over 3 weeks. The consensus is exceptionally clear in this case and my neutral "close" (i.e. "without comment or summary") explicitly invited comments from others. Even if I were an admin I'd vouchsafe that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion as I had. Anyway feel free to revert my "closure" if it was indeed inappropriate but I think it would be a ridiculous waste of time, and I disagree that it's "per ]". -] (]) 04:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
'''If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here'''. Instead follow advice at ].
:::No objections to a ] with comment and summary of course. -] (]) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


<section end=Instructions/>
===]===
{{TOC limit|4}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 17 December 2013)? Please assess whether there is a consensus for a block. Thanks, ] (]) 12:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
]
:I would also like this looked at and don't feel comfortable doing it myself since another editor thought I was not impartial. Don't think this should be just dropped like the first ANI was regarding same stuff from same person. — ] (]) 02:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
===]===
* ]
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 3 September 2013)? At ], the RfC initiator wrote: "Incidentally, once the RFC ''is'' restored, it would be great if an administrator could then close it, as there had been no new posts for several weeks." Thanks, ] (]) 19:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
===]===
<!--
Would an experience editor assess the consensus at ] which was opened on Oct 9, 2013? The discussion is of moderate length and is in regard to a proposed photo and whether or not it is suitable for the article. Thank you, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 16:10, 24 December 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
===]===
The rfc template was removed, so the outcome must have been obvious, but two of us ] the result went. Could an uninvolved admin please formally close it? Thank you. ] (]) 22:13, 25 December 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 -->
This one clearly failed to obtain consensus. For the record, I !voted ''in favor'' of the changes. I'm half-tempted to close it myself as "no consensus" but perhaps an uninvolved editor may wish to summarize the discussion or include recommendations on how best to proceed forward. (No admin action is required I don't think, so any experienced editor is welcome to close it.) Thanks! ] (]) 16:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


=== ]===
===]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion is calming down a bit. --] (]) 08:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{initiated|14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}} ] ] 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


===Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading===
=== ] ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
open for over a month, including the multiple relistings. ] (]) 21:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


== Requests for comment ==
===]===
<!--
Was archived after several dozen support and oppose entries along with many additional comments, includes a community sanction proposal that needs uninvolved administrator closure (and if consensus for found, enactment). Was open for six days, active for four then idle for two and archived. ] (]) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Please place entries ordered by the date the RFC was initiated (oldest at top)
{{hat|1=This isn't the place to continue the dispute, but to request the closure of discussions. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)}}
:The Rambling Man continues to make personal attacks. This kind of thing needs to stop. And it's not just toward Medeis and me but to others. That's another issue. But I must ask: Please, please, please implement this interaction ban ASAP. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
::Agree, to the above and the Proposal #2 Topic Ban of M and BBB from the Ref Desk. ] (]) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
:::The above editor is attempting to imitate TRM and get him into trouble. See discussion on ]. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*}} template when placing a request here
*I wasn't aware of this request for closure until just now. Four days ago I am not sure I would even have commented. In light of the consensus of about 4 to 1 in favor of either only an interaction ban between TRM and myself, or in favor of no sanction whatsoever, I will repeat my preference for an interaction ban.


*** 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. ***
:Unfortunately, after just a few days rest, TRM has again resumed following and addressing me critically on different pages.
-->


=== ] ===
:Especially troubling is TRM's reviving his pointed allusion to "'''tragic'''" events in a veiled response to me at ] after his comment regarding a '''''' of which I am the survivor were redacted. See my intended-to-be private explanation at Deborahjay's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Deborahjay#FYI . (Admins who want details and public documentation can email me privately.)
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)


=== ] ===
:This Ref Desk thread was edited after the fact to add in a condescending remark about my ''''''.
{{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)
:{{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)


===] ===
:Then look at TRM responding to me as "" and quoting me verbatim at the Monica Spears murder nomination at ITN. once again adding in an allusion to a "''''''" when he basically 'thinks of a better comeback'! An admin drags this from private talk page to ref desk to ITN, to serve what purpose in improving wikipedia?
{{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>


===]===
:An immediate, indefinite interaction ban is called for, one I will be glad to have mutually imposed, one I have asked for repeatedly since the new year. This pattern of elevating provocation is long term, with TRM attacking for me for a period of weeks last year, calling me "meds" all accross the project, and beginning attacks again the fall at ITN. When TRM can't get my attention, he attacks ] or Baseball Bugs as proxies, attacks "incompetent admins" for not imposing arbitrary sanctions on all his imagined enemies across the board. As a qualification, I ask that no other sanctions be placed on TRM, and that neither of us be banned from participation in any particular thread such as ITN which we both have histories of editting, so long as we do not directly or indirectly refer to each other or allude to each other's edits. Thanks. ] (]) 01:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
{{Initiated|03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}
:What would "closure of discussion" consist of? ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. ] (]) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::As George as clearly noted above "uninvolved administrator closure (and if consensus for found, enactment)". (Oh, and having read the ridiculous nonsense above, I do reserve the right to use the word "tragic" as I see fit... "Allusions"? Delusions. Medeis, if you don't want your life story published, don't publish it.) ] (]) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The information in the above hatted section shows that provocative interaction by The Rambling Man is continuing, even after the third ANI was allowed to go dormant without closure. It is continuing ''even on this thread'', with TRM "reserving the right" to "publish my life story". Perusal of the ANI shows an obvious 4-to-1 consensus in favor of an interaction ban. Medeis and Baseball Bugs have requested this repeatedly, and TRM does not oppose it. Please impose the requested interaction ban. Failure to close serves no purpose other than continued disruption. ] (]) 03:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:::Just for clarity, I reserved the right to use the word "tragic" without recourse. I also advised you to avoid publishing personal information as it can be used against you by nefarious types, i.e. they can determine your identity, your address etc. These two constructs are entirely separate and your conflation of them is exotic and without any basis in fact whatsoever. Secondly, you misrepresent me, I certainly do _not_ want the interaction ban because it would prevent me from compiling the RFC about your misbehaviour and ongoing selective censorship at the ref desks. Thirdly, it's very "creative" to assert a 4-1 consensus, but that's pure falsehood. And by now I'm sure you appreciate it's not a vote counting exercise, despite your assertions here and at ITN. The quality of the argument counts too (e.g. "Support 1" alone is meritless). You may also wish to note the many people who supported proposal 2 which was to prevent the ongoing RD nonsense. I strongly support this, that we are all prevented from editing ref desks for the next six months as it may allow other, genuinely helpful editors to contribute without the fear of being rebuked, joked at, hatted etc. Very few oppositions for that, and some in strong support, particularly from those who have been driven away from the RD by both Medeis' and BB's recent behaviour. Time to look closer to home. As ] said: "you do it to yourself, that's why it really hurts." ] (]) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
{{hab}}


: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)
:] - '''closed'''. I thought it pointless to unarchive to close, then re-archive after the close. But if some uninvolved editor thinks it should be displayed (or at least linked to) at ] or ], please feel free at your discretion. - <b>]</b> 18:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{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)


=== ] ===
===NFCC discussion needing closure===
{{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)
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
:is the current list. ] (]) 15:38, 13 January 2014 (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)
Open for longer than seven days without a relist. (I am uninvolved.) '''<span style="color:orange;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:yellow;">]</span></sup></small> 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
:We have quite a backlog at the moment, and there's about 90 other AFDs that need to be handled before this one. Please be patient. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
::{{close}} <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{initiated|16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)|done=yes}} Very wide impact, not much heat. ] (]) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Because so many WP:BLP talk page discussions are about this issue over and over again, and variations on it have been brought to WP:Reliable Sources Noticebaord repeatedly - and because the articles all are under ] - it would be helpful if an experienced admin could close this WP:RSN thread. There seems to be a fairly clear, but less than perfect consensus. It was opened January 9th and the last comments were January 12, so if it's not ready for a close now, by the time someone has time to look at it, it should be ripe. Thanks. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 02:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


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


=== ] ===
The consensus appears to be very clear here. Could an uninvolved editor please close this RFC now that a reasonable amount of time has passed ( days as of this post) ] (]) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (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)


===]===
This RfD has now been open for 12 days and is failing to gain any new opinions despite disagreement continuing; I think everything useful has been said that could be said. Closing it would aid the current parallel discussion at ], as indicators of current practice (typically taking the form of RfD decisions) are sorely needed. Thank you. — ] <span style="color:#900">•</span> ] 13:53, 15 January 2014 (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)
: just now by BHG. --] <small>] • (])</small> 14:21, 16 January 2014 (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}}
First listed on 8 November. --] <small>] • (])</small> 13:11, 16 January 2014 (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 ==
=== ] ===
{{XFD backlog|right}}
Discussion stalled since 11 January. --] <small>] • (])</small> 17:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
=== ] ===
{{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 3 heading ===
=== ] ===
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
Discussion stalled since 10 December 2013‎. --] <small>] • (])</small> 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


== Other types of closing requests ==
=== ] ===
<!--
No new input for several days, a consensus has been reached and the discussion is stagnating. ] ] 00:15, 17 January 2014 (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.
=== ] ===
] initiated an ] before being blocked as a sock of ]. There has been no discussion and the question itself looks suspicious. Can I non-admin close this RfC with no further issue? <font face="copperplate gothic light">] (])</font> 00:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 10:57, 17 January 2014 (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 editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 22 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Which image should be added in the infobox? The present image which was captured in 2009 or ] taken in 2012 at Skyfall premier ?" Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 02:20, 17 January 2014 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 25 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} ] <sup>]</sup> 11:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


===]=== === ] ===
{{initiated|11:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)}} Experienced closer requested. &#8213;]&nbsp;] 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 4 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 November 2013)? The question posed was: "Ought the list of lawsuits be greatly expanded, as listed above, for the reasons given in the posts suggesting them." Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


===] ===
===]===
{{initiated|16:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)|type=mrv}} ] ] 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 26 November 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 31 October 2013; RfC tag 3 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
:{{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 02:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


===]=== ===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (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)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 5 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
=== Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading ===

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2147483647}}
===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 15 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 14 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 19 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 16 November 2013)?<p>If there is a consensus for any changes, would the closer file a ] to notify the developers of the consensus, or if that's not the correct venue, post the change where it's appropriate? Or maybe modify any guideline/information page per the discussion? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 11 December 2013)? See also the discussion at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
: {{done}} -- ]<font color="#335599">'''Лее'''</font>]. 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at at ] (initiated 8 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 10 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

===]===
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 December 2013)? Thanks, ] (]) 02:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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 3 3

    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: