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 12:29, 13 August 2012 editBabbaQ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users104,504 edits →Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Mullans and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Suntribe← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:44, 12 January 2025 edit undoAaron Liu (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,849 edits →Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404#RfC: EurAsia Daily/EA Daily deprecation: done 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{admin backlog}}
<noinclude>{{adminbacklog}}
<!--
{{Noticeboard links}}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
{{shortcut|WP:ANRFC|WP:AN/RFC}}
New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of this page and not up here.
{{archive box|box-width=250px|
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
image=]|
-->
:'''], ], ]'''
{{redirect|WP:CR|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]}}
{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for ]}}
{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}
]
{{Archive basics
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 37
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
|maxsize = 256000
}} }}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|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 ]).
== Thank you to closing admins ==
Thank you, {{user|Beeblebrox}}, {{user|The Blade of the Northern Lights}}, {{user|Drmies}}, and other admins for your considered closures of the RfCs mentioned on this board. I am deeply grateful for your help in assessing the consensuses in these discussions. Thank you, {{user|Armbrust}}, for keeping this board cleared of fulfilled requests. ] (]) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you, {{user|ThaddeusB}}, {{user|Armbrust}}, and other closers for your thoughtful closures. ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)</noinclude>


] '''Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.'''
== Requests for closure ==
<includeonly>''This section is transcluded from ].''</includeonly><!--


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.
IF EMPTY, PLEASE PLACE THIS LINE BELOW:


] '''Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.'''
*''There are no requests for closure''
PLACE REQUEST FOR CLOSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST -->


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 ]? Initiated 27 May 2012, the discussion was listed and archived from ]. Thanks, ] (]) 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:The RfC was initiated by an arbitrator. I am not sure that the ArbCom intends it to be closed by a random administrator. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::I have asked Arbitrator {{user|SilkTork}} to take a look. ] (]) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::The Committee are in discussion on the matter, but the RfC was not an ArbCom initiative, it was started by a Committee member, but acting as a community member, as was made clear by one of the clerks - ]; as such any uninvolved admin may close the RfC with a summary of the discussion that the Committee will take on board. I took part in the discussion, so it would be inappropriate for me to close it. ''']''' ''']''' 19:46, 7 July 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.
=== ] ===
Would an admin assess the consensus at the at ] (see the subsection at ])? Thanks, ] (]) 00:08, 26 July 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'''.
=== ] and ] ===
Would an admin assess the consensus at the at ] and ] (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 00:15, 26 July 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.
=== ] ===
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 29 June 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:Now archived at ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 07:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::Now un-archived. Please close the discussion. Could someone determine if by another user forced the archiving of an RfC awaiting a close? ] (]) 09:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, that edit has made the bot archive the section. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 09:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Note that the RFC Bot had removed the RFC notice automatically, as RFC's expire automatically at 30 days of age. This occurred PRIOR to my edit. ] (]) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
:::::I will place a Do Not Archive template on that thread to prevent it from rearchiving prior to admin closure. ] (]) 18:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


]
=== ] ===
'''Any ] may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.'''
At ], {{user|David1217}} wrote that "Closure is no longer necessary. A VPM discussion closed as (rough) support for enabling ReferenceTooltips by default, and the relevant MediaWiki gadgets page has been modified to make the tooltips default." I cannot find the VPM discussion that was closed with rough support for enabling Reference Tooltips by default. Would David1217 or another user who knows the location of the discussion close ] with a pointer to the VPM discussion to provide documentation? Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
:The VPM discussion is already archived at ]. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 07:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you for the link, Armbrust, but I don't see how the discussion was "", as stated by {{user|David1217}}. ] (]) 00:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Well I don't know, but Reference Tooltips were enabled as defeault, as I have to opt-out. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 05:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
::::Okay. Would someone summarize the discussion's consensus for documentation purposes and link to any Bugzilla request (if there is any) that implemented Reference Tooltips? ] (]) 00:58, 3 August 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.
=== ] ===
Would an admin summarize the consensus at ] (initiated 25 June 2012)? I have a new RfC tag at ] (initiated 30 July 2012) to attract more participants. The RfC was closed by {{user|RoyBoy}} at ] as having consensus to add "primarily" to the lead, but the close was contested by {{user|Parent5446}} who advanced a new proposal at ]. Does the first discussion have consensus to implement RoyBoy's change, or should the RfC closure be delayed until there has been a 30-day discussion of the new proposal? I will let the closing admin decide. ] (]) 01:00, 31 July 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}}
The discussion at ] has been at times contentious, with users contesting closer {{user|John}}'s neutrality. Would a completely uninvolved admin assess the consensus at ], taking into account by {{user|John}} and by {{user|Dennis Brown}}, two admins who were asked to review the discussion? ] (]) 01:00, 31 July 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}}
Would an admin summarize the consensus at ] (initiated 25 June 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 01:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
]


== Other areas tracking old discussions ==
=== ] ===
* ]
Would an admin summarize the consensus at at ] (initiated 22 June 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== Administrative discussions ==
=== ] ===
<!--
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 1 July 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (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
=== ] ===
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 11 June 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 00:58, 3 August 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 -->
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 2 July 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


=== ]===
===]===
{{initiated|17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} challenge of close at AN was archived ''']''' - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 5 July 2012)? Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 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 ==
===]===
<!--
Would an admin assess the consensus at the RfC at ] (initiated 12 July 2012)? If the consensus is to activate the section 0 edit link, would the closing admin or a user with a ] account file a report there? Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (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
===] and ]===
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] and ]? Because the sections discuss the same topic, I recommend that the closer make the latter link a subsection of the first one and then assess the consensus in the overall discussion. Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:1st {{close}} by {{admin|The Blade of the Northern Lights}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 08:13, 13 August 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. ***
===]===
-->
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 12 July 2012)? The RfC is listed at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


=== ] ===
===]===
{{Initiated|done=yes|06:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)}} Apart from two indiffed editors in the discussion, it looks like this RfC was unanimous. Worth closing out. - ] (]) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at ] (initiated 13 July 2012)? The last comment was on 4 August 2012. Thanks, ] (]) 06:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
:The editors were blocked for unrelated reasons that weren't socking nor spamming. I would not exclude them; we should weigh the course of the arguments instead. Definitely needs a close, though. ] (]) 17:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{Done}} with the close, sorry for taking so long to mark this; I had a sudden bout of internet issues. I'll be finishing the deprecated sources procedure soon. ] (]) 18:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)


=== ] ===
=== ] and other requests ===
{{initiated|22:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)}} Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. ] (]) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
] has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January.
Would an admin (or admins) review:
{{collapse top|Closed}}
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Hu12}} ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Hu12}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 09:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Hu12}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{withdrawn}} by {{user|Woz2}} ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Amatulic}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Amatulic}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Amatulic}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|Amatulic}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 08:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
#] - {{done}} by {{user|AGK}}. ] <sup><font color="#E3A857">]</font></sup><sub> <font color="#008000">]</font></sub> 18:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse top|Waiting for closure}}
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#])
{{collapse bottom}}
After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. ] may be useful. Thank you, ] (]) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


===] ===
===] and ]===
{{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 non-involved neutral admin is needed to assess the consensus for these two discussions. ] discussion has been open for more than a week and made need to be closed soon but some allegations of cavassing have been raised by a user. The Mullans AfD article is in need of some assessment of its consensus as well. ] (]) 12:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
:{{a note}} This is a ] and subject to ]. - ] (]) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
:Note to admin - the canvassing allegations have been resolved as there was a misunderstanding by the accuser which has now been cleared up. The user above mustn't be aware of this. It may be necessary that ARBCOM action is required as the situation regarding Eurovision-related material being nominated for deletion is causing much confusion between the nominators and project members of ]. <b style="background:black">] ]</b> 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
:'''] ''''']'''''&thinsp;,&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
::Also I just have to say that Bleubeatle is grasping for Straws here by using a false/resolved accusation of canvassing to try to influence an AfD. Peace.--] (]) 12:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

=== ] ===
{{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)

=== ] ===
{{Initiated|16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)}}
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)

=== ] ===
{{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)}} Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. ] (]) 10:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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

== Deletion discussions ==
{{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)

=== ] ===
{{initiated|02:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)|type=cfd}} <b>]]</b>&nbsp;(]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (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 place entries ordered by the date the discussion was initiated (oldest at top).

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

*** PLEASE 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|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|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)

* {{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)

===]===
{{initiated|11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)|done=y}} 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)
:{{done}} ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 13:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

===]===
{{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)

=== 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 18:44, 12 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 30 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 28 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:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 404#RfC: EurAsia Daily/EA Daily deprecation

    (Initiated 616 days ago on 7 May 2023) Apart from two indiffed editors in the discussion, it looks like this RfC was unanimous. Worth closing out. - Amigao (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    The editors were blocked for unrelated reasons that weren't socking nor spamming. I would not exclude them; we should weigh the course of the arguments instead. Definitely needs a close, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
     Done with the close, sorry for taking so long to mark this; I had a sudden bout of internet issues. I'll be finishing the deprecated sources procedure soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

    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 76 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)

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

    (Initiated 67 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 58 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)

    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 32 days ago on 11 December 2024) Participation mostly slowed, should have an independent close. Happily888 (talk) 10:14, 10 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 26 29
    TfD 0 0 0 5 5
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 5 5 10
    RfD 0 0 28 19 47
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

    (Initiated 23 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 11 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 109 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 75 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 66 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:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

    (Initiated 46 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)

     Done Seraphimblade 13:38, 12 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: