Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 34

Talk:Confederate States of America
Note: Rfc header removed by Legobot 16 March. Although quiescent for some time, this may have implications beyond this one article, and should have formal evaluation. Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)
Requesting formal closure since it requires changing a WP:GUIDELINE. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It's going on two months now. Would someone please give us closure? GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done--Bison X (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident
Please review Talk:Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion, and the one below, don't look like they need to be closed. These are just normal talk page discussions. If you would like, maybe you could explain why these discussions should be closed? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:FC97:4774:E325:9B2B (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 *  Reply - This discussion will determine the correct title. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * nd not an RM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident
Please review Talk:Will_Smith–Chris_Rock_slapping_incident. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - This discussion will determine if a reactions section should be added. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The first discussion should probably have been structured as a requested moves discussion, so it should be closed, but the second one doesn't seem like it needs to be closed. Anyway, because both of the discussions are relatively disorganized this discussion is unorganized, it will be almost impossible to close this discussion. It's probably better if someone starts an RFC after this discussion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B1AE:A56E:B4C:3EB3 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * nd just a regular talk page discussion, not a closeable one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_offensive
Hi

I ask and admin or an experienced user to close Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_offensive. There are consensus to move to Donbas offensive.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Moved here from . BilledMammal (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Pegasus_(spyware)
The result should be clear. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to . — Ixtal &#8258; (talk) 09:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Gender_dysphoria
Last comment in the RfC was over a week ago. While the outcome is clear, the topic area (WP:GENSEX) is generally contentious, so an uninvolved close would be best. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to -  Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chemical data pages cleanup
. Request is described at #Request hatting closure. (Talk is stale, after a noconsensus-closure of an AfD). I am involved; I think this thread status is not controversional. -DePiep (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I gave a glance at this and honestly don't have a clue what I'm looking at. Is there something people are still disagreeing about? If everyone tacitly agrees what the consensus is now, no formal closure is necessary. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You saw it right ;-) In short: discussion is stale; was concluded elsewhere in a related AfD; the AfD advised thorough discussion elsewhere (like VP or RFC).
 * To close this (complicated, multi-subtopical) discussion thread I propose hat-ting by an outsider; follow up possibly elsewhere or as restart (see ).
 * The closer (like you) does not have to conclude, just freeze the big thread. Reason I ask here is that I am involved and so cannot add myself. One of my opponents in there supports this route. DePiep (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done as requested. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 6
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , this discussion seems to have been more of a straw poll/brainstorming exercise, so I'm not sure formal closure would be very useful. (If I did close it, I would probably say something like "there is interest in several possible titles, including 2022 Canadian convoy protests, Canada convoy protests, and Freedom convoy protests, but there's no consensus for any particular proposal due largely to low participation. Further discussion is welcome since most participants aren't happy with the current title either.") My suggestion would be to choose one (and only one) of the proposed titles that gained the most support (maybe 2022 Canadian convoy protests) and propose it in a new RM, giving participants an either/or choice between the proposed title and the status quo. It might also be worthwhile just to wait a week or two: it may well be that finding consensus will become far easier once these events are safely out of the headlines. I hope this is helpful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I just started a move discussion at Talk:Canada convoy protest/Archive 6. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Jax 0677, do you still need a formal closure of the discussion? The RM was just closed as "no consensus for move". Natg 19 (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - Might as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * nd Given that there has been a subsequent move discussion that ended in "No consensus," it's probably best to just let this preliminary discussion disappear into the archives. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Brian Rose (podcaster)
No new discussion for a week. No resolution or clarity has emerged from the discussion. Would be useful to have an outside closer. Bondegezou (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, somebody just commented today. I'd prefer to leave a day or two to see if there are any responses to the most recent comment before closing the discussion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reminder ping to . A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's borderline for me, and I'm not exactly sure that either of the texts have full support, so I'd prefer an experienced admin close it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A more recent discussion participant has proposed to draft alternative language, so I would wait and see if that comes about. A few more days can't hurt, particularly where maintaining the status quo is the default alternative. BD2412  T 05:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After almost three months, we are still no closer to a consensus on this one. Would appreciate an experienced editor to review and close as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * done.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371
Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at ? Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   06:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese_government_response_to_COVID-19
Requesting close to open RFC on another subject. CutePeach (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done, with courtesy ping to . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 17:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden
Discussion has stagnated, an uninvolved close is needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2022_April_24
- only been open a day, but consensus is clear. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I note the irony of closing a DRV after only 1 day, when the DRV is about the early close of an AFD only 2 days after it was relisted. Though it is SNOWing - even from those that "voted" KEEP at the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, close was "no consensus", not "keep". BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted and corrected. Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Spartaz. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:1C45:6147:C17E:A3EF (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion_review/Log/2022_April_24
- only been open a day, but consensus is clear. BilledMammal (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I note the irony of closing a DRV after only 1 day, when the DRV is about the early close of an AFD only 2 days after it was relisted. Though it is SNOWing - even from those that "voted" KEEP at the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, close was "no consensus", not "keep". BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted and corrected. Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done by User:Spartaz. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:1C45:6147:C17E:A3EF (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Christ Catholic Church (Pruter)
this RM has been going for almost a month now, with a relisting and the WikiProject concerned notified 18 days ago. The only comment so far, made 13 days ago, is a comment which seem to support the RM. Per WP:RMNOMIN, I ask that the RM be carried out. Veverve (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 04:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Discussion seems to be ripe for closure. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done 2601:647:5800:1A1F:250C:38E9:9B7D:2A04 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_369
Please see also this talk page discussion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It would seem like this discussion has disappeared into the RSN archives. Should it be resurrected to give us closure? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 16:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed link to point to the specific archive, will ping all participants once this is closed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Three months and still not closed. Would someone like to volunteer to help close this? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:250C:38E9:9B7D:2A04 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done ★Ama   TALK   CONTRIBS  05:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've conducted the request for closure. Please notify all relevant involved parties as to the established consensus. If there are any questions I'm always willing to add, please Ping me in your response or post on my Talk page. ★Ama   TALK   CONTRIBS  05:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Republic (Slovakia)
– The split discussion has been open for almost 10 months, no new opinions for half a year. Please close. --RJFF (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Felix QW (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kherson
This RM has (in my view) run its course, is going on its 7 day listing period (in like a few hours) and consensus seems pretty unilateral and 'easy to establish'. I'm involved myself since I voted. Thanks in advance for anyone taking the time and energy to drop the figurative hammer on this one. It has no real hurry or priority, for the record. ★Ama  TALK   CONTRIBS  04:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close by –  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 06:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
Uninvolved editor provided his feedback. RFC template was removed by the bot. No new comments since 4th of April. Formal closure is required. Thanks in advance. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Close This has now been closed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ali Khalifa el-Zaidi
– Last relisted 18 days ago, needs closing. Avilich (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisted recently, wait for a few more days, then close. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:8CB1:4D9D:1384:107D (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * not done Relisted by at 21:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents
Boomerang proposal that needs closing; no new !votes for almost a week. BilledMammal (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Sandstein. Politrukki (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 79
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Best Beatles (talk • contribs) 02:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive341
The close of the 2022 NSPORT RfC was challenged at AN. Given the magnitude of the issue, closure may be needed now that the AN discussion has been archived. The implementation of the RfC is dependent on the AN discussion. An experienced closer previously uninvolved with the NSPORTS discussions would be ideal. Pilaz (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * This close request should be removed. It's over a month old, the outcome is very obviously "no consensus to overturn", and the closure has already been implemented at WP:NSPORTS (and AFDs have already been decided under the new NSPORTS). On the ground, we're way past this close review; there's no benefit from a formal closure at this late stage. Levivich 16:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * not done Seems moot at this point. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Forgive me if I formatted this incorrectly, this is my first closure request. I submitted the issues with user Desertambition on the noticeboard and the discussion needs closer one way or the other. A proposal was presented and there appears to be consensus. It's a bit of a chore to read though so I appreciate the time it will take to pour through. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes
This discussion has wound down. I believe there is a consensus. I would like a clear close by an uninvolved editor. MB 00:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion doesn't seem like it needs closure, as it is just a normal talk page discussion. Any reasons why this specific discussion should be closed? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Can't glean any sort of consensus from this unorganized discussion. It is probably better to let it disappear into the archives. If somebody would like to hat this discussion with an informative summary, please do so. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:1C45:6147:C17E:A3EF (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewing now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing the text for this request, and checking against past discussions and RfCs on this topic there does appear to be a consensus present. I'm formulating a close now, though IP editor I would appreciate if you could review it once I've made it, just to ensure I haven't accidentally supervoted please. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. . Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
On top of the inherently contentious nature of the proposal, there was significant controversy over whether this RfC (which failed WP:RFCNEUTRAL) is adequate to its intended aim. Have fun with this one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion's now archived. With the caveat that I participated in the discussion, I will say that I don't think it's necessary or even worthwhile to close it. It became a pre-RfC discussion which might lead to a well-formed RfC in future, but wasn't really one as written.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I don't feel particularly strongly about this getting a formal closure either; by my reckoning, it wasn't going to change the existing consensus anyway. That said, I don't think there would be much community support to open an actual RfC soon after this discussion because so many people treated it like one. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted 's edit which marked this request as done. I had posted a duplicate request for closure down in "Other types of closing requests", as this wasn't really an RfC. Regardless of where it's placed, I do think formal closure would help for this discussion, which was posted on WP:CENT and well attended. If an uninvolved volunteer thinks this should be "not done", I'll accept it. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is over 2 months old and probably needs to be closed. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:250C:38E9:9B7D:2A04 (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For convenience, the now archived discussion is in RSN Archive 370. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * not done I don't think it's worth the effort of writing a close. Given the previous time this got through to a proper RfC it was a far better attended one than this, I don't think that what is probably at best a very borderline consensus with about/just under 30 participants (in something which eventually proved to not even be a formal RfC) would be convincing enough to alter this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have however added a note of the discussion on RSP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
No comments in nearly a month. A close is needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done Sorry that took so long. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II
More than 30 days have passed, no one other than the users that were already discussing the issue participated in it, I would like to request a formal closure for it. -- 2804:248:f6f7:5f00:c103:4e6:143a:96bd (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Reviewing now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. RfC closed as Consensus Against. . Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tennis
– Open for three weeks now; needs closing. North America1000 09:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Close: Closed as keep (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Wall Street Journal
Hasn't been resolved or commented on in months. Bill Williams 23:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just checked and noticed there were two votes in the past month, but before that there were no votes in four months, so it still has to be closed. Bill Williams 03:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, notifying all participants. . I'm not able to ping the IP's. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've posed a close objection at the article. While I appreciate the effort, I don't think this was a good close and it was perhaps BOLD for a editor who has been active for just a bit over one year.  Springee (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please write all comments about my closure on my talk page. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Move_review/Log/2022_March
The discussion is circling the drain with same users repeating the same points to each other. Calidum 17:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems this discussion has indeed run its course and a closure should be completed so the next steps consistent with the close may be initiated. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Done by User:Wugapodes. -- Vaulter 03:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Will and testament of clerics
It seem this AfD has been forgotten, as noted by Metropolitan90. Veverve (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was done by Joe Roe. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Battle of Nakhchivan (1406)
Apparently duplicate AfDs were created for this article, after which copied one discussion to the other, including the AfD close templates. The inclusion of the close templates is apparently confusing the bots, because it is not being listed anywhere as open, and it is therefore overdue for closure or relisting. Based on the discussion to date, it would be eminently plausible to relist rather than close, and I could easily remove the existing close templates myself to help restore some semblance of order, but I hesitated to do so without bringing it to one of the admin boards and explaining the situation. So here I am. --Finngall talk 16:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinging me. I've never gotten along with bots. Please feel free to do whatever is necessary to ensure that there is one, and only one, complete discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NYB. I've replaced the AfD top and bottom close templates with more generic discussion closure templates--we'll see how that works.  --Finngall talk  18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bit of a mess that one. But as far as I can tell there was only ever one AfD page and one transclusion. The problem started with this edit, where for some reason the user copied the whole nomination before responding, so we don't need to retain the duplicated nomination and comment. I've tidied it up and relisted it. Done. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Russian information war against Ukraine
Contentious topic area, so requesting admin please close RM opened more than a month ago. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
This RfC has been quiet a few days. I think the main points have been made for both sides. Ready for a close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User Bashar
There is an obvious consensus that has even been acknowledged by the nominator, but the discussion has descended into hostilities between between two users, with disruption and edit-warring over a !vote removal and some intemperate language. The sooner this is closed the better. (imho) - w o lf  22:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Politrukki (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
Take it out back and shoot it.  Tewdar  10:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done - Didn't need shooting. Needed formal closure.  Provided formal closure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Farukh
discussion is stale. - K<b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Paine Ellsworth. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * done Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jimin_(singer,_born_1995)
Requesting closure 52-whalien (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was done by . Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 5
Not sure if this is the right place to put this. Happy for it to be removed if it is not. Discussion was opened 1 month ago, last comment was on 23 April. Requesting experienced closure as this CfD was subject to offwiki canvassing. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisted at 20:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC) by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Polonca Frelih
Not sure if this is the right place to put this; but this needs relisting. --Firestar464 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * not done @Firestar464 Deletion discussions are open for 7 days before they need relisting, and they are automatically put in Article for deletion for relisting or closing - there's no need to post here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done, courtesy ping to . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 03:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup
With all the edit warring going on in the article, I think it's time for a neutral editor to determine a consensus. Jalen Folf  (talk)  20:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 22:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Republican Party (United States)
Discussion has been still for a while. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have left a close done  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Soon-ok
Requesting close from an uninvolved editor. Last comment was made on 29 April 2022. Fiwec81618 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur that the close is justified. I've been uninvolved in the lengthy discussion. Activist (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. User:Jax 0677, you've complexified the archiving quite a lot by not using initiated, and I leave it to you to sort this out.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nicholas Wade
- stale discussion --Animalparty! (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States
This RFC has been contentious because the question that it addresses has been contentious. So a close by an administrator may be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've asked repeatedly in the RfC for a three-editor panel close of this very long discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Asking in the RFC for a three-editor close doesn't have any effect. Asking here is the place to ask, and a panel close will be a good idea.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a non-admin closer, and would be happy to help out with a panel close. Anyone else interested? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to join a panel. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mhawk10. Let's see if we can get one more. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little inexperienced with closing, but if you're happy to have me I'd love to join to get more experience. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We're officially this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * if you're inexperienced with closing I would not recommend joining a panel close. The point in panel closes is that a group of trusted closers reach a common interpretation of the discussion's consensus. Two trusted closers and an inexperienced one would not really be much of a difference from just two. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 15:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Ixtal. An RfC of such significance is the last one inexperienced editors should be involved with. Dear colleagues, I trust your good intentions. It is in that spirit that I ask that only editors experienced in closing down RfC's, plus at least one admin, should undertake the work. -The Gnome (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Objection to undertaken closing: I have nothing against the good intentions or the abilities of the three editors who undertook the closing. But the issue is quite significant and the arguments raised from all sides are anything but simple; many of them directly address Wikipedia policy. I suggest that the work must be done with the participation of at least one administrator among the closers. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? RFA doesn't test a person's ability to evaluate complex arguments in the light of policy. It's a test of temperament, resilience and popularity, nothing more.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH all I said was I do not recommend being unexperienced closers, but I am not prejudging Sidswipe9th's or the other two's understanding of policy. If there are any issues with their close it'll be taken to closure review, and if not the RfC will finally be closed rather than having to wait months for any closure to happen. In essence, the benefits are large and the problems are fixable. It is clear to me that there are very, very few admins actually willing to do controversial closes. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 10:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where do you see admins unwilling to do "controversial" closes? Our personal experience differs significantly. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Me, and several others - in the Azov Battalion thing immediately above. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the fact that very few admins actually patrol closure requests here. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/World Music Awards
– Listed since 20 April, last relist 4 May, closure overdue by a week. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Spartaz. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects
– Highly personalized AFD stemming from a VPP discussion about the misapplication of MEDRS, which is ironically evoked in the AFD statement and in several !votes. I fear this is a case where the AFD is being used to build a consensus against including content on MEDRS grounds, without discussing the applicability of the guideline to the disputed content, which would then be deleted under a WP:BLAR close. The nominator, who singled out the Tinnitis claim in the VPP and AFD didn't even bother checking if there are review articles on the subject, so I really don't see any grounds for deleting content on the basis of WP:MEDRS, WPLOR, or WP:FRINGE. CutePeach (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the formal wrap-up to somebody who is familiar with the process here, but I've placed a note on the AFD recommending against an early close. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I also recommend against an early close. Not much benefit from it, especially due to the contentiousness of the topic area. Thankfully there's enough votes to prevent relisting anyways. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done No need for an early closure. Also as mentioned at the top of this page closure requests should be neutral and not be an attempt to get a desired close. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Wall Street Journal
A closure of the RfC was withdrawn following a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE at WP:AN. An experienced closer is requested. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am doing a thorough read through - will post something up in due course.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Will Smith
I'd close it myself as noncontroversial (consensus looks pretty clear to me) but I did participate, so for the sake of the vocal dissenter and the look of the thing I'm requesting an uninvolved editor step in. Fieari (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Femke (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done Femke (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Asgill Affair
Discussion is stale. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * close by editor .  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 08:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

In_the_news/Candidates
ITN nomination that needs closing before it is archived. BilledMammal (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close by -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox musical artist
Been open 2+ months and the discussion should be closed at this point. -- Vaulter 14:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done --GRuban (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting
It's been open for a week and discussion has slowed, it's not necessary to drag this out any longer as it seems unlikely to get more feedback that would sway the result. Recommend closing in 24 hours in case there are any last minute objections. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * –– FormalDude  talk  05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Courtesy ping . –– FormalDude  talk  05:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ! —Locke Cole • t • c 17:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
The AE thread has been open for two weeks, with minimal substantial participation in the past week. Multiple participants are calling for a closure; an uninvolved admin is requested to take a look. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * already done by . — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rulin waishi
– This request was listed nine days ago; two editors have commented, both on that day. Could someone uninvolved close the discussion? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 03:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 72
Needs one or two uninvolved editors to close this. --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait to close a few days. The RFC is still running. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:C54D:43E:AA67:CA78 (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The RFC is done now, so the closure process can start. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:7546:E856:AD20:126A (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan
I closed this following a request on 4 May but reopened to try and gain further participation. RfC has now been open nearly two months with no activity for over a week. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close by .  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 07:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Gravelly Hill Interchange
– Already 1 month. GenuineArt (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close by –  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 07:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard
Closure review of widely participated RSN RFC. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kim Seon-ho
Uninvolved closure is requested. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 11:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Azov_Battalion
High visibility/newsworthiness article. Strongly-held disputed views. Messy RfC. Policy questions. Overflow and further disputation in additional sections now archived. Also previous RfCs and former discussions. Panel close by experienced admins could be valuable. Jheald (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not an admin, but I'm down to join a panel if other editors want to start one. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 23:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise not an admin, but happy to join a panel, or to close individually. In either case, would provide substantial rationale, as done for previous closes of contested RfCs. - Ryk72 talk 03:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be best to leave this to admins, it is highly contentious and thus I think it might be best if is done by some kind of "authority" so as to give it some weight. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To illustrate the problem, a number of accounts have shown up since this request for close that have chosen to make the change ort ask for it, whilst not actually commenting in the RFC. Thus I am unsure the issue (or interest) has settled. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, leave this to admin. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, and I won't touch it. This was a horrible RfC right from the start - the statement was long, incoherent and often changed, so it wasn't possible to work out what was being asked, let alone leave a suitable constructive comment. Even Legobot had difficulty in identifying the start date, and so made the in the RfC listings. Since it couldn't determine the start date, it also doesn't know when thirty days later might be, and won't be able to remove the  tag, so it will need to be manually removed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So folks, any volunteers for a potential kamikaze task? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Request for attention made at WP:NPOVN and WP:AN -- Jheald (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * a panel close alongside and . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato I would suggest closing off this RfC while you work on the close otherwise you will never keep up with the survey. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are new conversations being had an new points being brought up... why should it be closed? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are literally working on a close where this has been done? Lord give me strength. It's an enourmous, messy RfC with 60+ participants. Working on a stable discussion would probably be easier. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, . I've done so now. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. It's been closed. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 13:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Mariupol
Merge discussion was closed and reopened by another editor with reason "involved editor". Could an uninvolved editor review the discussion and close. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. BilledMammal (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19
Nearly a week since the last comment was made. –– FormalDude  talk  08:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 07:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to . Sorry y'all had to wait so long for that one to be closed.— Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Side Show Freaks (2nd nomination)
Please review Articles for deletion/Side Show Freaks (2nd nomination). --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment - The article has now been listed thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. –– FormalDude  talk  23:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Azov Battalion
Uninvolved closure in this move discussion is requested. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 06:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout
Would like a formal close for this one before it gets archived. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Reverse racism
Withdrawn by nominator. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Michael_Portillo
. Discussion died afer a week, apart from one comment 3 weeks later (15 May). No consensus, and no point in leaving open. Request closure.--Smerus (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * done RfC closed, there was a rough consensus for one of the options presented. Courtesy ping to who requested the close. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Perfect Dark (2010 video game)
Discussion has slowed considerably in the two weeks since the PM was opened so I'd like to request an uninvolved user to review and formally close it. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  13:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done by . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Concerned/1
Requires an uninvolved editor to close. All but one commenter supported removing Good Article status. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * . Femke (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Femke (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
The activity on this has long dropped off and it just needs an ideally admin close, as its a key page in a conflict area. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done by David Fuchs, 12:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of minority governors and lieutenant governors in the United States
I, foolishly perhaps, closed the last RfC on this topic as the consensus was clear. It would be good for an uninvolved editor to close the latest RfC to put this issue to bed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Courtesy ping to Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max
Someone to evaluate consensus or lack thereof requested. Discussion has long died down, and it's been roughly three weeks since the last comment. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Port_Elizabeth
and no further comments for the best part of a fortnight.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Amakuru. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Siege of Mariupol
Pretty clear consensus imo, but a closure was undone by another editor who said it "wasn't uncontroversial". Another editor has asked for a closure. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Femke (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done Femke (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)
– Expired RfC on revised text to this naming conventions guideline. Expired after 30 days on May 12 with no discussion since. Would prefer someone to close this so that I'm not closing my own RfC. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done Levivich 18:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:NSONG and covers
The RfC template has expired, but there still needs to be an assessment of consensus so that we know whether or not to modify the relevant guideline. Discussion was started on may 4 - thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done Levivich 20:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
No comments since June 2. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Expired RfC that I started to get community consensus for a proposed bot task. Requesting formal closure so that I can decide whether to file a WP:BRFA. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Levivich 22:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_26
Clear consensus to delete after the second relist, per WP:REDLINK. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done by . –– FormalDude  talk  13:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 5
– Originally opened in 3 April, it was then relisted on 5 May 2022. Last comment after relisting was 7 days ago. Requesting closure. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Queenstown,_South_Africa
RM was started on March 31. No new comments since May 4. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. –– FormalDude  talk  02:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ulf_Mark_Schneider
RM open for over 50 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. –– FormalDude  talk  01:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Pope_Clement_I
RM open for over 40 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done by Vpab15 on 22:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC). Natg 19 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive342
- archived topic ban appeal, requesting per a request at WP:AN BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am again requesting attention to this. I am pleading that an administrator please close this soon. It has been 50 days since I made my appeal, weeks since the last comment on discussion and weeks since it was added to this page here. Yet no closure. This leaves me in a frustrating limbo where I have no resolution. That weeks have gone by and no administrator has taken action to close this has been quite frustrating. I would be most appreciative if one would SecretName101 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will add that in the past 50 days I have also continued to work on making appropriate improvements to the project while awaiting a closure of this discussion. SecretName101 (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it okay for me to non-admin close this as no consensus or to uphold the topic ban? Several supporters indicated that SecretName had improved their behaviour, but opponents noted that SecretName was caught repeatedly violating their topic ban. I thought that the first rule of appealing a ban is not to engage in the banned behaviour during the ban. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done - I have closed the request here with no consensus to lift the ban at this time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Soul_Eater_(manga)
RM open for over 50 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 01:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Spanish_rice
RM open for over 50 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kehl_Winery
RM open for over 50 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * close. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Winckelmann_(disambiguation)
RM open for over 40 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Aldebaran_(Ai_song)
RM open for over 40 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rosalía_(singer)
RM open for over 50 days. Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Close by, 18:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Tulsa hospital shooting
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * not done. This is an informal discussion and is still active. If a consensus forms, then according to the NOGOODOPTIONS closure of the previous RM, editors can open a new RM. This discussion does not need formal closure.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 14:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment - Then a move request it is. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  03:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle
Expired RFC that I started that has grown into a large, complex discussion where many proposals were considered. An experienced editor who knows how to evaluate consensus carefully would be helpful to close this discussion. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:D528:4D19:2CF7:AEB2 (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 04:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
– Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * and in this subsection, the forecast is WP:SNOW.  starship .paint  (exalt) 09:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * not done closed the request without a topic ban, despite its unanimous support, presumably to let ArbCom deal with the issue. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. My close was largely procedural, upon further review it is clear that there was a very strong consensus in that subsection. That being the case I have re-closed it based on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Dead_cat_strategy
Political article with no obvious consensus reached.--Lord Belbury (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle
Discussion at: to redo the close by an uninvolved user. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Village pump (policy)
 * Closed. Withdrawn by nominator. This is a closure challenge.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 13:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth, Cant say I understood what you are saying. yes, this is a request to redo the close. Are you suggesting me something? Venkat TL (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just the result of my going to the closed AfD discussion, and not realizing that it was a reopen/reclose situation, I came back here to mark it done. Didn't want others to make the same mistake I made. You're good, it's all good.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 19:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * not done This AFD is already closed, and WP:CR is not the place to request a re-close of an AFD; that place is WP:DRV. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 23:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria
A snow close is in order. Can someone check the weather forecast for Antarctica? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 23:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack
No comments for more than a month. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Twinkle
– Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to and RfC OP . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Tis a shame because I use graphical as one of my defaults. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business
Nominator has withdrawn, only other votes are keeps. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics/Archive 4
The discussion dried 37 days ago. 10 days ago last comment was made. Folks have suggested asking for closure. Venkat TL (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done I've closed the discussion; seems that consensus is in favour of the proposal. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_2
I'd say no consensus, but it was leaning delete in later !votes, so I will leave an admin to decide. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This was relisted after the timestamp posted here. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  02:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Sisodias of Mewar
>>> Extorc . talk  16:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo
No new comments have been made for one and a half months. I think it's ready for closure. WARNING: The subject is very controversial and the discussion has become very extensive (I apologise for my part in having perhaps contributed to that excess...). Closure would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nation_of_Islam
Vote count is 7-1. Last vote was June 11; the three more-recent posts have been about non-contentious technicalities. The page itself seems pretty lifeless, but I don't want to close myself because I responded to the RfC and it involves everyone's favorite perennial source. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The_Kashmir_Files
Request formal closure of this expired RFC since it was started to deal with a lengthy and heated debate, involves RL political issues, and may attract real-life attention. Abecedare (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
Discussion has appears to have slowed (there is some additional new discussion in a sub-section on sources that shouldn't affect how this is closed) and the RfC template was automatically removed due to expiration. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go
Please review Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose this close request. Jax 0677 is requesting to close a normal talk page discussion, where multiple editors disagree with his use of "alleged" and "allegedly" in one way or another. Such a close is non-standard and not beneficial to anyone except for Jax 0677. Others might want to comment on the topic. For example, Jax 0677 was recently involved in an edit war at the article with Zedembee, who last edited on June 18th. Zedembee's last edit was to challenge Jax 0677. So Zedembee might want to comment in the discussion when returning. GBFEE (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * not closed per opposition above.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - I disagree with the opposition. Instead of closing this discussion myself, I am asking a neutral party to do so. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In light of the post above from an editor who disagrees with closing that discussion formally at this time, it is also true that some discussions, such as informal talks and disagreements, do not need to be formally closed. Your newly begun RfC will be a much better candidate in about a month or so.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:False_equivalence
Quiet since June 17. Seeking formal closure as consensus is unclear (to me) and topic is controversial. GabberFlasted (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Mz7 (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2021 Atlantic hurricane season
Seems to be a strong consensus against merging. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. In the future, when making requests at this noticeboard, please keep your wording neutral—avoid suggesting an outcome. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Claire Danes
Request closure of this RFC. Slywriter (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 23:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting
Needs a formal close. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Outline of library science
Request to close page move discussion by an uninvolved editor as consensus is provided by no comments. Jamzze (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 00:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Femke (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte
– Please review Arbitration/Requests/Case/Geschichte. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've left a message at WT:AC/CN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Once an Arbcom case is filed, dealing with it is strictly a matter for the Arbs and their clerks. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply -, does this not suffice for notification? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you should have done that yourself in the first place. This noticeboard is not part of the arbcom setup - whilst some of the people who post to (or merely visit) this page may be arbitrators or arbcom clerks, such people post here in the capacity of admins or regular editors, not in the capacity of arbs. We have no right to close any discussion that is at Arbitration or any of its subpages, so raising a closure request here was an improper attempt to bypass their established processes. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * much as I respect you as a veteran editor and someone I've had the honour to meet too, I think you're being a bit harsh on the OP here. I see no evidence they were trying to bypass any processes, they just thought maybe that case should be closed and this is the closure requests board. The solution is to AGF and simply point them to or forward the request to the correct venue for such a request, as indeed Extraordinary Writ has already done. Cheers, and hope all have a good Sunday. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 *  Reply - Agreed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 95 in New York
Seems to be a strong consensus. 75.99.68.66 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. (consensus was sufficiently clear that formal closure wouldn't have been necessary) Femke (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done I've closed the RFC with no consensus. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Miscellany_for_deletion
Seems to trend towards a keep. Won't do it myself since I voted (but retracted the vote). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Scottywong finally. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Miscellany_for_deletion
Seems to trend towards a keep. Won't do it myself since I voted (but retracted the vote). — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Scottywong has done it. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Uezd
Last comment was posted 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC). —Michael Z. 20:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jane's Revenge
There have been no new comments since July 1 and I am requesting uninvolved closure. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done Closed in favour of merging. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Generation Gap (2022 TV series)
I opened a discussion on a proposed page move a week ago, to which no one has responded. I cannot close the discussion myself, of course (as per WP:RMCLOSE). If someone will close it, I shall execute the move. Thank you! – Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Village_pump_(proposals)
- Discussion has only been open for a week, but it appears to be snowing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done by TonyBallioni. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 12
the last vote (mine) was 22 days ago as of posting. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 08:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque
Becoming protracted and unwieldy. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done Moved in favour of an alternative suggestion discussed late in the RM. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice
this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Closed as no consensus, discussion ending 1-1 with few other comments. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of political parties in Italy/Archive 5
We have decided to close this RFC to partially rewrite it and start a new one. A formal closure is necessary in order not to create confusion with the new RFC that will be started. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:SDC's closure request. --Checco (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the discussion in the subsequent talk page section, especially in light of the comments volunteers at WP:DRN, I do not believe there is consensus to close this RfC. Though I would appreciate a second opinion on this prior to marking it as not done. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th: Maybe we should wait the now open ANI thread. I feel like closing that RfC would be for the best, not so that they can start a new, very similar RfC, but so other users can discuss on what the best options would be for the next RfC, so a broader WP:RFCBEFORE. My fear of closing the RfC now, though, is that they will see this as a green light to start the other one. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that may be best given the circumstances. At the time I wrote this last night, the ANI thread had yet to be filed, and that certainly has the potential for changing the underlying situation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In the meantime I had stated that some changes to the current RFC were enough to prevent its closure, I don't understand why they were rejected. And if I'm asked not to start a new RFC after the closure of the current one, I wouldn't start it. It seems fair to point this out.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is now at AN/I.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the ANI thread closed yesterday. I'll ask on the article talk page if the participants there still wish the RfC to be closed. . Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RfC would benefit from closing just so it's done. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I second this: could this RFC be closed soon, so that we can move forward? The article is laying in a limbo since months at this point. Yakme (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, :D — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:PBS
The discussion was initially closed by me today (13 July 2022), specifically, sometime this afternoon (I launched it last month), as Wikipedia policy (WP:RFCEND, specifically #5) does allow any editor involved in a discussion to close it upon a consensus being reached. It was closed based upon my interpretation that a consensus was reached (of the editors who got involved, 5, in one way or another, stated support for my proposed change to the current wording; 4 stated no reference for, and thereby no support for, the current wording [which was the reason for the RfC]; & 1 editor didn't even vote, but simply stated that, ultimately, programming defines a station) in favor of the re-wording I had proposed. Another editor,, got involved, disagreed with my interpretation of a consensus &, at least from my point of view, wrongly re-opened the discussion. After some back & forth with Ization, I have decided to request a review of the discussion, in the hopes that, depending on the result of the review, not only will I no longer have to worry about dealing with the editor, but that they'll be convinced to accept the facts of the situation & move on to something else. 2600:1700:C960:2270:3CD1:517A:41BE:55DB (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved 2600:1700:C960:2270:E482:1902:B447:B5E8 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Piped link
Requesting closure of this RFC by an uninvolved editor. Hwy43 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Australian Wikipedians' notice board
Requesting closure of RfC for inclusion of Australian Indigenous placenames within the lead and infobox of articles. This discussion has stagnated for long periods of time and there is no new arguments being added. It would be helpful if the closer had knowledge of Wikipedia naming guidelines, notability guidelines, and potentially a basic knowledge of history or linguistics. Poketama (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful if the closer could wade through a morass of discussion caused by a poorly-formatted and vague RfC. What is really needed is a more focused question, rather than some request that Indigenous names must be included in lede and infobox regardless of appropriateness or reliable sourcing. Consensus from experienced editors seems to be that these should be included on a case by case basis according to existing Wikipolicy, rather than mandated. The WP:SPA nature of editor raising the RfC should laso be noted. --Pete (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited in a clarification on the question shortly after posting the RfC and I think it can be resolved from the content of the discussion what the result was, rather than re-doing an RfC that has taken months. Users who were unsure of the meaning of the question still gave thorough explanations of their opinions, which can be used to reach consensus.
 * Additionally, the meaning of the question has repeatedly been explained to Pete. I'll note that Pete is one of the primary parties in the dispute and thanked me for starting the RfC, as well as doing the formatting of the RfC themselves (See here: User_talk:Poketama) Poketama (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very true. Still the question is poorly formed and the discussion consequently rambling. Making Indigenous placenames mandatory in the lead - for that is the effect your question seeks - is very poor wikipolicy. There may be no reliable sources, and WP:UNDUE always applies. The way forward, as found in discussion aimed at resolving the RfC, is for involved editors to collaborate in writing an essay giving guidance for the case-by-case decisions favoured by most respondents. Your contributions in that effort would be most welcome; this is something we have to get right and opening the gates for crusaders from either side is just going to turn Australian geographical articles into a bitter morass for years as cultural warriors throw stones at one another. We work together to produce a useful and respected encyclopaedia, not to sing our team songs as we piss in our opponents' beer. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The RFC tag shouldn't have been deleted, but rather left to expire. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 *  Comment - Should an RFC not be allowed 30 days prior to closure? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:FB_MSBS_Grot
Request closure of RfC by an uninvolved editor as consensus is unclear. Gusfriend (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


 * done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Astrology
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apaugasma (talk • contribs) 13:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Paul Pelosi
It's been several days since a !vote. This RfC is about something relatively recent so it would be nice to get a definitive answer on what content should be included. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability
Requesting closure by an uninvolved admin. I'm aware this is early but the result is (I think) already very clear but is being disputed in other discussions, therefore closure by an admin seems advisable. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done, although this is before the 30 days, so anyone can revert if they feel it necessary without checking with me first. I would ask that anyone thinking about doing so consider the likelihood of the result changing, and instead begin earnest discussion on figuring out the best direction to go from here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this closure needed an admin, but it might have been better to leave it for an uninvolved editor. Certes (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene
Could someone please close the RFC, it's been going for 24 days. There's also a related thread you may want to close on User_talk:Jimbo Wales. <span style="font-family:Roboto Mono,Droid Sans Mono,Courier New;font-size:small;">Andrevan @ 04:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done, although since this is a bit early, anyone is welcome to revert my closure and I'll come by in a week and close it the same way again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music
Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * not done I don't see a need for a closure here. 3 editors on a WP talk page which is not an RFC or similar other large discussion. Or even contentious. Much less that the appropriate forum for any final discussion is WP:CFD. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:NGO Monitor
– Is just going round in circles with one user insisting on (what looks like OR) be inserted in the lede. It is not going to get resolved as the user has refused )it seems to me) any compromise text, and has offered no alternatives to their version. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a complete misrepresentation of what is going on - I have suggested several compromise alternatives, and all my additions (which have been reverted with false claims) have been fully sourced. Izzy Borden (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 06:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:People%27s_Mojahedin_Organization_of_Iran
Discussion stopped weeks ago. Needs formal closure. Thank you. Iraniangal777 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia_Guidestones
Request for Comment regarding veracity of a source listed on the page. Consensus appears to be clear, but this is contentious, so I would like an uninterested editor to take a look at it for a close. Thanks FrederalBacon (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand that 4/5 days for an RfC is short, but this is a dispute about whether or not a video from a known conspiracy theorist is a reliable source for a statement of fact in the article. Between that and an apparent POV issue from the requester, noted by 3 different editors, this is a pretty clear snowball's chance. FrederalBacon (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Joe Biden and Talk:Kamala Harris
Recommend both be closed with a consistent decision, between them. Editor participation was near identical, in both RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I closed Kamala Harris. I'm skipping Biden for now, that one looked trickier to my tired brain. Unfortunately it may not be possible to keep the two closes in sync as requested. For whatever reason it looks like the attendance and arguments at the two RFCs were a little bit different. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Did both. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wish you'd reconsider making your closes the same. Having Biden's intro as "...46th and current president..." & Harris' intro as "...49th vice president..." (when they're both incumbents), isn't ideal & tad messy. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly, would be hard to do without supervoting. The two discussions were different. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've recommend editors to follow the Biden RFC result for both bios. In the meantime, I'm guessing that someone will put up a challenge to one of your closes. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Bummer. Just trying to help out with the ANRFC backlog. Not really looking for drama. In the future, I think it'd be better to only publish one RFC with a wording of "should 'and current' be included in the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris articles?" – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wanted to do that, but didn't know how to accomplish it. GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Could do the unified RFC on the Joe Biden talk page, and use  on the Kamala Harris page. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Somebody else can, if they want. It looks awful now, so maybe somebody will. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of presidents of the United States
Need an uninvolved editor to close the RfC and determine the consensus. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. – Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_23
Nominator has withdrawn. I also retracted my solitary delete vote and the other two participants want to keep. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:McDonald's
Requires attention from experienced users. -- M h hossein   talk 12:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done Endorsed the split. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
– Requesting an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and close this discussion. This lengthy discussion has been going on for 15 days and we have a consensus from three Editors of agreed changes and to close, and a anonymous editor with various IP addresses that has no support for their edits and may object to the close, hence this request. Note their was a previous related discussion at Talk:Space Race and a ongoing related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and the anom editor has made appeals at various talk pages ie User talk:JustinTime55. Ilenart626 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, 204.15.72.92 (talk), 193.233.171.17 (talk), and 194.145.237.79 (talk) are all the same person, see here (Disclaimer: The original computer network was down so I have to use another network at another place, hence the address difference) and here (Hi, it's me again. [...] I had to switch networks again). TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Rock balancing
Has run for a month and seems relatively clear, although one editor has voiced concern that hobbyists may be trying to "distort Wikipedia's consensus processes" and has asked that this be taken into account when the RfC is closed. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics/Archive 4

 * Mellohi! the RfC is complete. Bot has removed the tags. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No extra people have objected since the conversion to an RFC. Should we keep the RFC open for another few months or just close it? (Pinging you since I remember you doing the conversion.) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest just closing it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish thank you, can you also redo this Special:Diff/1094857309 edit by @Mellohi! linking the closure diff. I prefer the same user who closed the thread does it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point
- RfC, no comments for two weeks. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go
Please review this RFC. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_13
Considering that several categories here have been populated since the beginning of the nomination, I'd close as procedural keep per the WP:TRAINWRECK principle. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Premeditated Chaos. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Droupadi_Murmu
Clear consensus, please close this is a high visibility page. Venkat TL (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 01:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Help talk:Citation Style 1
RfC tag expired a few hours ago, and the last contribution to it was on 13 July. Requesting closure please. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2022 Luzon earthquake
Clearly as there is no consensus. please close this discussion per WP:SNOW. HurricaneEdgar   07:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. –– FormalDude   talk   04:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Female (gender)
As has historically been done for other highly contentious and large AfDs, I would like to request a panel closure of this one. It is at 176 kb and rising, with dozens of 'votes'. It would be quite helpful I feel.

It still has about another day to run, but I'm posting it now to give time to make the arrangements and for people to volunteer.

I also posted about this at WP:AN but some editors said I should list it here. Crossroads -talk- 04:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to work on a panel closure here. Valereee (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help if needed, just ping me. <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 14:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Valereee and Scottywong. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters
Consensus is clear but needs top section closure so that we can move on czar  16:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Femke (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100
I request that this be formally closed. It appears that there may be a consensus here, but the result of the discussion needs to be logged. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been archived without closure. BD2412  T 06:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done <span style="font:bold 15px 'Bradley Hand','Bradley Hand ITC';color:#044;text-shadow:0 0 4px #033,0 0 10px #077;"> —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 14:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive80
- RFC tag has expired & activity ended weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 14:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case
Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * close by at 19:25 on 4 August 2022 (UTC).  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'r there 03:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go
Please review Talk:Death_of_Michelle_Go. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Close -The Gnome (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
A consensus for an American politics TBAN has been reached. Needs closure and implementation. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Since the above comment, the discussion has widened to include a community-imposed siteban proposal. In a few hours, the discussion will have run the minimum 72 hours recommended by WP:CBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Already done. Blablubbs closed the discussion and enacted the ban. Courtesy ping for . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Italian Social Movement
RFC tag expired two days ago, and discussion has stopped since weeks, so it needs a formal closure. Already the OP took initiative and decided the RFC result without a proper closure, and they might try to do this again soon. Yakme (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This type of allusions (to which the user is not new) seems to me inappropriate and rather out of place. Until now there was a clear consensus for one of the three options, after two months of Rfc I limited myself to realizing the result of the Rfc, it was my prerogative. However, another user intervened today (after the expiration of the RFC, to tell the truth) and this slightly called into question the balance of consensus. Perhaps the best solution would be to further extend the RFC and seek the opinion of other users, to have a more defined result.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I voted for the option you favor, so I am sort of shooting myself in the foot here, but your methods of working here are totally unacceptable. (1) A 5–3 majority is not automatically a proof of consensus, let alone proof of "clear" consensus; (2) it was not your "prerogative" to "realize" the result of the RfC by yourself and also act on it by editing the page accordingly; (3) I don't think it's forbidden for users to give their opinions after the expiration of the RfC, their opinion is still valid; (4) I am not against extending the RFC, however this has already gone for more than 2 months. Yakme (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For me it is quite irrelevant if you consider "unacceptable" a prerogative provided by the rules of Wikipedia. You are free to challenge my interpretation of the result and request closure from an uninvolved user, but not to contest prerogatives explicitly provided by Wikipedia itself.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You simply do not have the "prerogative" to determine a non-trivial result of an RFC started by you, period. Anyway let's wait for a proper closure. Yakme (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Revived. -The Gnome (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * After a month of renewed discussion, which has by now simmered down to silence, it might be time to indeed close this down. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed article mergers
Major backlog of requests needing closure czar  17:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 *  Reply - Thank you for your post. People are likely to be aware that there is a backlog.  You might consider closing some of the simplest discussions with which you are not involved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * not done --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think editors are likely to be aware, hence my post. It's a fairly arcane page/process managed mainly by one editor. czar  16:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
- Been little activity in the last roughly two weeks. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Baseball
- The RFC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges
The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about lists of inhabitants of a certain region by net worth
No further contributions or comments are being submitted since 6 July 2022. A clear consensus seems to have been reached. All that remains is the formal closure. -The Gnome (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:TERF
RfC expired, closure is requested. Crossroads -talk- 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Move_review
Open more than two weeks and discussion seems to have tapered off. -- Vaulter 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion briefly revived but the last comment was 5 days ago. It is nearly certainly that anyone who has anything to say has said it at least once. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This was done by me a bit ago. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022
Speedy keep requested here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * not done Some people voted delete or merge. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:TikTok
Consensus appears clearly in support of split, but I cannot close myself due to my COI. Can an uninvolved editor please close it? Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This discussion has seen a lot of participation in the last twenty-four hours, and consensus is now uncertain, so it's probably worth waiting another week or two before closing. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * close by as . — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Festival of Brexit
- The move request has been up for a week. Clear consensus to move although number of contributors is small. Please note also a consensus that the move should actually be to "Unboxed: Creativity in the UK." (i.e. not all upper case). I claim the IP edits and am therefore involved. Many thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * close by .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344
Nobody's added anything for a week, so it's time to wrap this up. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like this one was also archived without closure, which is probably fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * not done per above (marking for archival). Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
I really don't think it's fair to the appellant for a ban appeal to remain open for so long, regardless of the outcome (disclaimer: I participated) -- Dylan 620 (he/him · talk · edits) 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * already done closed by on 11 August. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for marking this; I forgot to check if it was listed here. The SandDoctor  Talk 02:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103
It was archived without closure or administrative resolution. The concern was brought up again at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring on 23 July 2022. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * not done When admins don't do anything, it means either that there's nothing needing doing yet or admins don't know what's the best thing to do. Anyway, it's more or less stale now. And there's been Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1106 well after this discussion. If the issue persists, it's better to raise a new report. Try to keep the reports succinct so they get read by most editors that look at them. You can reach out to individual admins on their talk pages if you get no support from the boards and you need assistance urgently. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon
No new comments since 1 June. Clear majority favoring the inclusion of the category, with a minority dominated by editors that appear to be in favor of looking at the Book of Mormon as a factual historical document. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here. Nice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 13:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Nintendo Entertainment System
No clear consensus has been reached, and with no comments since July 4, one is not likely to happen anytime soon. I have already messaged the editor who submitted the initial request about creating a draft article instead. SmartAn01 (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This request has been open for more than a month; in that time, two additional editors with major topic-related experience voiced opposition to the proposal. With no comments since August 3, I will ping uninvolved editors and  for assistance. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC) (formerly SmartAn01)
 * Unless someone else gets to this first, I will be able to close the discussion this evening sometime after I finish work for the day. Peaceray (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Peaceray (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review
Previous closure was undone. –– FormalDude   talk   16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * done by RoySmith. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion_review
— Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done by RoySmith. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump
RfC tag has expired and all the discussion has mostly run its course. <b style="color: #8B0000;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b>t@lk 05:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II
- Seeing as the RFC tag, has expired. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done, with courtesy ping to . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 21:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_11
Keep, delete per WP:TNT, or close as no consensus? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't find the 'keep' arguments compelling, particularly those that make accusations of targeting religious topics, which isn't the point of the nomination. The other 'keep' arguments advocate cleanup instead, but nobody is willing to step forward to do that. Therefore, I was going to close as TNT were it not for the comments about "containerizing" some categories, and I don't really know what that means, so I held off. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Bibliomaniac15 * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 17:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Staffordshire Bull Terrier/1
This GAR has been open since March and has been completely stale since the end of April. Skimming through it, there does seem to be a loose consensus to delist or at the worst, intervene to see if disputes have been resolved. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Already done Alsee (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:China
Open since May and has had a reasonable amount of participation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The_Kashmir_Files
The RfC tag has expired. <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg  (talk)  07:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Greased piglet
Request for Comment rooted in WP:SYNTH, on whether examples of use should require a reliable source to verify that they are notable examples, or whether editors can search the web and select any examples of its use and cite those directly as examples.

There have been eight (by my count) contributors, but no comments have been added for almost six days, and one of the main contributors has been indefinitely blocked in the meantime, the IP contributor has not edited since, and one contributor commented only on an unasked question.

The issue is quite contentious, and as the outcome would seem to rely on WP:SYNTH interpretation, I favour an uninvolved close please. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This would really benefit from a bit more participation, and it's only been open a week. I think letting it ride for now is probably a good call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for looking at it, and thanks for the advice. I've added a request for participation at WP:NORN. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. I took a peek, and with such low participation and so short a time, it's either let it ride, or no consensus. Hopefully the discussion progresses a bit more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to the contentious nature of this one, I wondered if we could get an uninvolved close (even if it is 'no consensus') to put it to bed before the automatic bot close due next week.
 * And just a note: one contributor seems to have misunderstood the question and !votes 'yes' to a question other than the one asked, and there are 'yes' !votes from two different IPs from the same range as the main contributor to the article and geolocating to the same area. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs
- The RfC tag has expired. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

would you do the honour of closing? GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure. Marking as Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals/Archive 7
The RFC tag, has expired. GoodDay (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

May we please have someone 'close' this RFC, in order avoid any edit-warring? GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By which he means his own. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By which I mean anybody. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're the only one who's already threatened to edit war. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither you or I, will unilaterally decide what the RFC result is, as we're both involved. Best to leave "Elizabeth II", as the place holder. When the RFC is officially closed? I'm certain both you & I will respect its result. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you are defelecting. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We (no doubt) have gotten the attention of folks 'here', with our little conversation. Therefore, I suspect an outsider closing the RFC, will becoming quite soon. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you do the honour of closing? GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Recession
This is relatively straightforward phrasing change, but lots of different opinions on a high-profile political controversy in the U.S. New comments have peetered out. A timely close would be helpful to get the talk page down to a reasonable size, and unblock some improvements to the intro. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022
Please relist or review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * already done. Closed by . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Conchita Wurst
– I made this move request just over 2 weeks ago. There has been a good and full discussion and the last legitimate comment was posted 4 days ago so it seems to have reached a conclusion. I wonder if an admin or editor could assess consensus and close? This is the first time I have completed a move request so I hope I have this procedure right. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Further to the request above, there seems to be a clear consensus and all it really seems to need is closing by an uninvolved editor. All the best, Emmentalist
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 17:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks
- Requesting closure from an uninvolved editor for this expired RfC. — Golden  call me maybe? 19:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Second Cold War
Need uninvolved closure on stale discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard
RFC expired, please evaluate for consensus on both Aon’s general reliability and how it compares to NOAA.69.118.232.58 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note for closing admin: RfC was not about how it compares to NOAA, just if Aon was reliable. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no less then 20 edits on that RFC comparing Aon to NOAA. If it isnt added, another RFC will be needed. 47.19.209.230 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
- RFC tag expired, days ago. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Olivia_Newton-John
RFC has been open 11 days, discussion has slowed. Please note additional discussion in preceding section which may help to gauge consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Mariupol art school bombing
No comments since August 7th. Don't know if this is the correct place to put this merger request closure but oh well.. Peralien (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done  Madeline  ( part of me ) 13:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:People's_Mojahedin Organization of Iran
This is an RFC about a fairly minor editing matter that may have been better off being discussed in a normal talk thread. The proposer presented a question that was neither a simple yes/no question, nor a clear set of options, but rather is a compound, open-ended question (and on a conflict area page no less). At least one editor called for procedural close precisely because of the lack of clear options. The resulting unresolved mess has been open for three months. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "If the consensus of a given discussion appears unclear, then you may post a brief and neutrally-worded request for closure here."  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Fad Ariff (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done Andre<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%);">🚐 22:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

====Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice § Inclusion of singles charts in album articles====

This went through a Request for comment, upon which after the RfC time expired, the tag was removed (diff). Requesting a formal closure of the discussion by an uninvolved user. North America1000 12:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done Andre<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%);">🚐 22:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Village_pump_(proposals)
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at this usability-related discussion? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Taíno
– Requesting closure of the above RfC from an uninvolved editor. A fair bit of diverging views, the result seems fairly simple to me but I can foresee significant edit warring without a formal closure. Thanks very much. Poketama (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene
– Appears to have achieved a consensus. –– FormalDude  (talk)  16:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * close by .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 20:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_20
Glitchy trainwreck nomination; breaks XFDCloser. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Thank you. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk: 2022 Pakistan floods
Appears to be WP:SNOW. Unanimous consensus to merge in a week. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done Closed it myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
Rfc for The question: In an article about an organism, should the scientific name of the organism be presented in boldface (as well as italics) when it is introduced?

The consensus seems (very) clear, and I suggest closure before the bot automatically removes the tag in 11 days. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done Andre<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%);">🚐 16:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Republic_of_Artsakh
RFC on how the Republic of Artsakh should be described in the articles requires formal closure. The last comment was made on 19 July 2022. --Abrvagl (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This initiated 75 days ago and you've had it "doing" for 19 days, just a gentle reminder. If you lock it to close it, you should close it in a timely way, or it should be reopened. WP:NODEADLINE Andre<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%);">🚐 22:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In case you missed the above. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That closure should be up in the next few hours. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Red-tailed hawk [ note by Andre<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%);">🚐 16:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC) ]

Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods
ndash This RfC is not very old, but consensus is very clear. An editor has already mentioned WP:SNOW, but as the initiator I feel uncomfortable in closing it myself. – LordPickleII ( talk ) 14:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/First Kill (album)
Please review this discussion, which has been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I opose closing until September 8, as Liz gave a detailed reason for relisting. 98.116.128.17 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And now done by SilkTork. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 381
RfC has been open for over a month and seems ripe for closure. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * the discussion has since been archived at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_381. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * a previous closure of this RfC has been withdrawn following a Close Challenge at AN. An experienced closer is requested. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 19:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done, with courtesy ping to . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 23:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
— Despite my own involvement in this RfC, this is an obvious closure since consensus is near-unanimous on deprecating this site. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods
– This RfC is not very old, but consensus is very clear. An editor has already mentioned WP:SNOW, but as the initiator I feel uncomfortable in closing it myself. Note: This had previously been archived by mistake, because I had messed up formatting, so here it is again. – LordPickleII ( talk ) 07:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 18:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk: Storm Elpis
Seems to have a consensus, ongoing for a while. 2601:185:8300:42EF:6149:B579:AF6A:2807 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Eddie Bayers/1
No comments since May. Involved editors do not seem to have any interest in addressing GAR issues present and have not commented in the GAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done by * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...  18:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy
Given that this requested move already had one closure reversed nearly two weeks ago, it could probably do with having another uninvolved administrator take a look. Graham (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Arbitrarily0. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II
There appears to be disagreement among some editors regarding whether or not there is a firm consensus against using the image of the Queen from 2015, which is resulting in a slow-motion edit war in the infobox. Uninvolved closure by an administrator would be helpful in putting an end to this. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done by . Thank you for closing this. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Titus_(dinosaur)
We're about 4 weeks into this and I think we need an uninvolved editor to close. I would recommend the closer also notes the similar discussion that recently occurred at Articles for deletion/Titus (dinosaur) CT55555 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * close. I think this can be ignored. I posed one final question and based on the responses I (a merge voter) was planning to close it as no consensus, since votes are split near uniformly. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 13:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_pitch-class_sets
– Honestly, I should have probably just boldly moved this, rather than opening a discussion. The current title is objectively incorrect, according to all the standard books on the material. Only two comments, one in complete agreement, and the other agreeing that it should be moved, but speculating as to the best target. The relevant WikiProject (WP:WikiProject_Music_theory) was notified at the start of discussion. Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Liz_Truss
Could do with an uninvolved close. Thanks.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Close Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Sinn Féin
This was relisted by the originator on 30 August 2022. It drew another few "summoned by bots", but there have been no further edits to the page for over seven days. Scolaire (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Done <span style="border-radius: 3px; padding: 2px; border: 1px solid #808080; font-size: x-small; font-family: Lucida Console, Monaco, monospace">Thparkth (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents
This discussion has been going on for a bit, has had decent levels of participation, and seems ripe for closure. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done. —  Newslinger  talk   18:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Astrology
– Seems like discussion has petered out. At question is WP:SHORTDESC and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, with courtesy ping to . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 22:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
– Would request closure of the above RfC from an uninvolved editor. Their has been a fair few comments however consensus is not clear with lots of divergent views. Note that I am making this request on behalf of the initiator of the RfC, who agrees with this request, refer discussion on his Talkpage. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfC has now expired and the last comment was received on the 21 August. I am ok with any uninvolved editor closing, an Administrator is not required. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that closing this RfC is quite burdensome and I'd very much appreciate if any fellow editor were to feel up to the task. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * done—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:The Globe and Mail
Request closure by non-administrator. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * , I strongly urge you to advertise the discussion in related wikiprojects, as currently discussion has been minimal. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 22:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ixtal: You're of course free to advertise more yourself, but I believe notification has been appropriate and discussion has been sufficient. Request closure by non-administrator. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * done. Not a whole lot of participation, but if we can't reach a decision with a unanimous consensus after 30 days, then there's no hope for us.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 15:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Deletion_review
Bit of a backlog of DRVs to get through. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: User:Joe Roe has closed all in the backlog except one. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Talk:Olbermann_(TV_series)
Please review or relist this discussion. -- Jax 0677 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Mellohi!., there are a lot of us who review the list of elapsed RMs pretty regularly, so it's not really necessary to make a request here unless the discussion is way overdue for closure. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Get_Rollin%27_(album)
Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been relisted, so marking as done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Universal_suffrage
It appears this RFC didn't get listed for closure sooner due to people fiddling with the RFC template and timestamps. Alsee (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done Tayi Arajakate  Talk 20:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Won't expire for another 3-4 days EDT, but might as well get this request out of the way now per GoodDay. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note, due to the length of this RfC (currently around 510kb), it has been suggested at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard that a panel closure may be warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's almost 70,000 words. Make sure you have an entire weekend free. Can something just be closed as ? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Tag expired days ago. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * RFCs don't have a hard deadline, and people are continuing to comment even just within the last few hours, plus there are at least a few RFCs on this page that are more stale and will need probably be closed before this one closes (though this list isn't necessarily ordered or in first-come-first-serve AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this anyone). Just be patient, it will be closed in due time. Andre<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%);">🚐 20:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion is likely close to, if not exceeding, <I>six hundred</I> kilobytes. It needs to be closed. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no size limit nor a WP:DEADLINE nor is the discussion stale since several new comments were added today, so, please be patient. It will not close any faster by complaining about it. It's a very large and unenviable task to close it that will take a lot of heavy, not fun, work from several volunteers. It is not proper to keep poking about it. Just forget about it and go away, and eventually, you'll wake up one day to find someone has written a lengthy additional bunch of kilobytes on what they thought of the whole shebang. Consensus is a process, and several voices that have just joined the RFC are valued, long-time contributors. Andre<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%);">🚐 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re only saying that because comments are beginning to shift into your favor. The longer the discussion becomes, the more time it takes to sift through the arguments. They can’t reasonably close an RFC where people are still commenting, as those comments also need to be taken into account. Precedent for closing toccomments is Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), where it was closed from comments on November 29, and not formally closed until December 1. This should go the same way. They even removed 8kB worth of discussion. AFDs also don’t have a hard deadline. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not proper to read the tea leaves. The recent comments are just as valid as the earlier comments, and sometimes discussions do shift over time, that is how it works. It is typical for discussions to be closed when they are stale, and everyone has had a chance, and not arbitrarily closed based on a clock. Trust that it will be closed soon and adjudicated fairly. AFDs and RFCs are not exactly the same, though both are consensus- and valid-argument-governed discussions. Andre<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%);">🚐 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Willing to be in the panel but wise to have at least a couple of admins. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it wise to have a closing panel, and mostly or all admins is best. BusterD (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support closing panel be minimum 3 admins Andre<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%);">🚐 22:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing how it still hasn't been closed,, , have y'all started on a panel close or are y'all waiting for more volunteers? — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 22:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * With respect to Tranga, I agree with others that we should prefer a panel of administrators especially considering that the last RfC was closed by an arbcrat, an admin, and an admin who later became a crat. Given the potential editorial and political implications of a closure, I think it's best to have closers who have gone through some community election process (see my essay on this topic). On my end, I've reached out to some crats and admins by email to try and find volunteers but am waiting to hear back. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , not sure if you're already aware of this, but just in case: you do remember that you !voted in the last RfC on Fox News's reliability? I have no horse in this race, but if you were to be a closer I'm thinking there could be some INVOLVED concerns: perhaps it'd be better to leave it to someone else? (I have no doubts about your impartiality, but for something of this significance the appearance of impartiality matters just as much.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, I actually did not remember that. I'm not running around looking for extra stuff to do, so I'm happy to leave it to others. I'll see if I can pull a bait-and-switch on the people I've asked to join the panel and maybe we'll make progress that way. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to mention that I plan to close the RfC (see also my prior comment). I don't think a three-closer panel is necessary, given that the RfC has been open for 50 days and no other sysop seems to have stepped up – I talked with @Wugapodes and it sounds like nobody asked was willing to close. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While you are at it, I suggest you impose a moratorium on raising this again. This is the third massive discussion we have had about this in two years, and because a ton of people are going to be unhappy regardless of how you find, some official discouragement from triggering another such discussion again may be warranted. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done, RfC is now closed. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Ko Olina Station and Center/1
Article was merged, so GAR may be closed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 15:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/HomeCo. Armstrong Creek Town Centre
Is a snow-close appropriate here? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done Steel1943  (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Organization_of_Struggle_for_the_Emancipation_of_the_Working_Class
– This merge discussion should be easy to close. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll let you (or someone else) handle the implementation. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Shroud of Turin
– A total waste of time. Please close it with prejudice. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC) One IP is now blocked, but another IP popped up with the same story. Please close it with prejudice. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * given how the last comment was on September 14, I’m not sure closure is necessary at this point. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the IP's point, this was an ordinary discussion, not a proposal that could be closed. Not done. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:British Esports
- Technically this WP:RM has already been closed, but it was closed by the person who made the request. This page move might've actually been OK per WP:RMNOT; however, since an RM was started, it probably would've been better for someone other than the requester to do the close per WP:RMCLOSE. There may also be a conflict of interest involved since the RM requester is listed as a Connected Contributor at the top of the article's talk page. For reference, I've also asked about this at WT:ESPORTS. I only came across this move after seeing that File:British Esports Association logo.svg had been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. I don't think the close was made in bad faith, but only perhaps by a fairly new WP:SPA user who might have a COI and who might not be very familiar with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. What would be the point? If you think the new title is inappropriate, feel free to move it back and start an actual discussion. Otherwise, it's fine as it is. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I just wanted someone else to take a look at it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Camille Vasquez
The last post was made back in June 2022, while a strong consensus had already been formed. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14
No comments since May. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Archive 14. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Move review/Log/2022 August
– closure is long overdue. Thanks in advance!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 05:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2011 St. Louis tornado
The renewed discussion in 2022 seems to have died out, nor have any support. Time to end this formally. 67.82.182.94 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no formal discussion to close. This was just a bad proposal that was unanimously opposed. This can be removed from this page. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So mark it as not done. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, USM, you’re comment was kind of rude. Also, per policy, specifically some blanking policy, the discussion can’t be removed, only archived. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that needs closing either. It's a proposal that attracted no support and went nowhere.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 12:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy/Archives/2022/September
– No discussion in the last ten days. Bit of a tough call given all the options. –– FormalDude  (talk)  08:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters in the closure itself, but I beg to differ as to the call's toughness. From the options listed, the leading one carries seven supportive posts, and the next only three. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)/Archive 189
Discussion about a change in the general notability decline message for AfC. There is disagreement about whether consensus was found for the last (bulleted) proposal, and a template edit request was declined. I started a discussion to address the open question (what to do with the decline messages for topics with an SNG), unaware of this declined edit request. Would be good to have a formal closure, so that the new discussion can build on that. Femke (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * done. While I do not normally edit archive pages, I agree that an exception should be made here for completeness' sake. As far as I could determine, consensus supported some sort of change, and I saw approval of the bullet format proposed in the middle of the discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jerusalem
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I looked at that, and I'm reluctant to close it. The RfC itself, without looking at the background and circumstances, is a "no consensus", and by our rules that ought to mean to restore the status quo ante.  But the status quo ante is to include the disputed images, one of which was created by NOTHERE and now-indefinitely-blocked User:Cameltrader, and both of which originate from Israel.  Palestine doesn't use them.  I do feel that including the disputed claim amounts to a backdoor endorsement of the Israeli claim to Jerusalem, and I think that's incompatible with the outcome of the 2013 RfC and undermines NPOV.  So I think that in the circumstances, it needs closing with a supervote to remove the images, but I'm not comfortable with doing that by myself.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm of a similar mind. It's going to come down to onus versus status quo. There is the possibility of looking at the earlier lead consensus and deciding if that has any weight in the current discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, courtesy ping to . — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 11:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 2
This RfC has now expired. Could an uninvolved editor or administrator please close it. TFD (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League
— One user who, from the start, disagreed with the majority requested that a RfC be started. There was consensus prior to the RfC that, generally, combined regular season and playoff stats should not be included in lists or articles, aside from 1 notable exception. The RfC did not generate any opposition to the consensus that had already been found. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really a proper RfC, but having read it, I see why you felt a closure would be helpful. Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news
Seems to have a pretty clear consensus after over a week and a half. 173.68.184.70 (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * not done. Discussion appears to have already been informally closed by and consensus applied. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 20:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Turning Point USA
Discussion has petered out many weeks ago, without a clear consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done Andre<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%);">🚐 23:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
- I was asked on my talk page to close "the Redux of the Redux discussion section and the active RfC" but having taken a look I don't understand what is being proposed enough or enough of the comments to properly assess consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done Andre<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%);">🚐 23:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:State_of_Palestine
<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(New_Zealand)/Archive_4
Conversation finished in March and has since been archived - some involved users have differing views on whether a consensus has been reached (and what that consensus is), which has since resulted in further disagreements on affected article pages. Would be good to have an outside take, if possible given the archived nature of the discussion. Turnagra (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a non-procedural close is suitable here; for a disputed proposal that suggests modifying WP:PAG, a formal discussion is needed.BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Your thoughts on the discussion don't preclude it from being closed. Turnagra (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the length of the discussion and the large number of participants, I am not convinced that a formal closure of this discussion would be a good use of a closure's time or fair to all of the earlier participants. If something is still in dispute, I think a formal RfC is the appropriate next step. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at this one a couple of weeks ago, and I agree that the closure request should be closed as not done and a fresh RFC should be started on the New Zealand MOS proposal if that is desired. Andre<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%);">🚐 23:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Speedy
Would an admin please clean up this section?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 12:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. This page is used to request closures of discussions. Please make your request at the correct venue, WT:Categories for discussion.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group)
The RM was initiated by a WP:SOCKPUPPET and goes against Wikipedia's conventions and guidelines and particularly WP:MOSMAC, and particularly this provision:. Therefore, the RM requires a speedy closure per WP:SNOWBALL. The initiator got banned. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 17:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a gentle reminder that this is a requested move (RM) and not a request for comment (RfC). So your closure request belongs in this "Other" section.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 22:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, the RM and RfC got their meanings interchargeable in my mind, somehow. Paine Ellsworth, thank you. Now I'm correcting my above post as well to eliminate the risk of causing confusion to the other readers. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List of best-selling music artists
There has been several AN/I filings surrounding this issue, lengthy discussions aside from simple !votes and policy implications of some arguments presented. I believe the closure needs to be undertaken by an admin or an experienced user with good knowledge of policy. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In this case the RfC generated many messages and several votes during the second half of August, but thereafter its activity declined. I did not close the RfC when it was still active; indeed, although I was daily checking for new messages, I let the 30 days period pass so that users would have as much time as possible to vote until Legobot automatically ended the RfC. During that time, users were able to vote, and there was clear majority support for eliminating the old methodology.
 * I also checked if any user had extended the RfC before Legobot ended it. After the automatic end, I waited several hours before closing it, and then I waited several more hours (in total about a day and a half) before proceeding with the implementation of the new methodology. For the moment, unless I am asked here to do so, I prefer not to revert the RfC closing as I believe that the time periods have been respected, and I think that what is motivating this request is the implementation of the new methodology on the List and not the ending or the closing of the RfC itself. Salvabl (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Salvabl you are a heavily involved editor on this topic and in this discussion (making 12 lengthy comments in the RfC). I believe that, given the contentiousness of the topic, it needs an uninvolved editor to close it to ensure that the outcome of the RfC has some legitimacy. Further, your close seems to heavily rely on !votes rather than the extended discussion of which you were a primary participant. I know this isn't the right avenue for to appeal a close so I'm again kindly asking for you to revert your close rather than taking this to WP:AN. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, if the reason for this request is the closing of the RfC, then I will revert it. Please, pardon my ignorance about the RfC process. I think it's good to have more time for more users to express their points of view. I closed the RfC because Legobot had already ended it and no user showed interest in extending it or restarting it; and simply because it seemed to have already accomplished its mission, since activity had declined and consensus had been reached to eliminate the old methodology. Salvabl (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. This is not about the time it's been open but the appropriateness for a neutral party to close the discussion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * . Should have a close by the end of the day. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 10:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, with courtesy ping to . Although it seems like the result had already been applied to the article, I decided to formally close it. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384
The discussion for this RfC has ended and has been archived. IMHO, a closure is desired. Many thanks! <span style="background: linear-gradient(#00FF00,#30D5C8)">VickKiang 21:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a mess of a discussion, but I'll try to close it this weekend if nobody else gets to it before then. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure that are you still going to close this? Many thanks for your time!  VickKiang  (talk)  22:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hrmm, a good question, actually. To be honest, I have been nervous about doing this ever since a politics closure I thought wouldn't be controversial blew up in my face a couple of days ago. I believe I could correctly close this, and I should have the time to do so well by Wednesday at the latest, but if somebody else wants to take this off my hands, I would be more relieved than anything. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Eh, on second thought, done. I don't think there should be any issues, and I probably can't embarrass myself that much more anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Coquitlam
Magnolia677 (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Typhoon Noru
– Clearly, many users favor not moving this page. please close this discussion. HurricaneEdgar   02:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * not done. agree that this RM will probably be closed as not moved; however, it is not a WP:SNOW situation because there is support for the move by an experienced editor. RMs are expected to go a full week, seven days, under these circumstances. Sorry, no crystal balls here.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;,  ed.  put'r there 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There has been no reason presented to expedite procedure per WP:IAR. Steel1943  (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A second extra support vote appeared. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022
. — xaosflux  Talk 00:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've closed all the proposals in the page, but haven't closed the overall discussion, as I feel it would be better for someone else to do so. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 22:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isabelle Belato thank you! For anyone else, a simple summary (ala Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021) at the top would suffice. —  xaosflux  Talk 03:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is simpler than I would have guessed. Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of Afghanistan
. Discussion is stale and tag has been removed. Requesting formal close since this RfC is attempting to change an existing formally closed RfC, and the subject is contentious. Tartan357 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categorization
. Expired at Special:Diff/1112134888. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, with courtesy ping to . Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Willow Smith
Please review Talk:Willow Smith. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It was a simple discussion that was made obsolete when someone took matters into their own hands and just did something different, which no one opposed. There's nothing needing to be closed here, it just needs to sink into the talk page archives. Sergecross73   msg me  15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine
Move initially requested 13 days ago by an account that has been discovered to be a sockpuppet and blocked. Consensus seems to be in support of a name change, but not for the particular name change proposed. I propose we close this current move request so a new one can be started with a name that is more supported based on the consensus that currently exists, and then continue from there. Annexation of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts and Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts are two possible consensus names, though I ask whichever person looks at this closure request to make their own determinations based on the discussion as well. Criticalus (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Closure in progress.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 06:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 08:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24
May need an experienced closer to close this discussion. There haven't been any new comments in over a week. Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Legoktm. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)
. It has been four months, discussion has come to a stop, and there is relatively clear support for including both terms in question. Cpotisch (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done, with courtesy ping to . Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kiwi Farms
. Probably want an admin or experienced non-admin closer for this one, as it's a bit of a contentious RfC and (in my biased/involved opinion) the opinions offered seem to have shifted over the course of the RfC, so I don't think it would be a trivial close. Endwise (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ceres (dwarf planet)
I would be grateful if someone could close this discussion, which has attracted no additional comments for the past eleven days. I would like a formal closure as it is holding up the closure of an FAC nomination. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom
I called the RfC after reading years of discussion surrounding this thorny and potentially NPOV issue. We needed a more rational and ordered conversation with contributions from less-involved, less-invested editors. The survey and discussion are lengthy but coherent and I have prepared a summary for any uninvolved editor willing to end the RfC. There now seems to be a happy consensus in favour of the change, but I'd be glad if a third party editor could close, preferably with a brief statement confirming the consensus and the legitimacy of the discussion. Thank you! Angry Candy (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done by . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about already done? --George Ho (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Darya Dugina
– If there exists consensus to merge, may I kindly ask closer to do so? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Gusfriend (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_military_aircraft_of_the_United_States
Split request was started over a year ago without any new discussion in months. ZLEA T \ C 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Gusfriend (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/1987–88_Real_Madrid_CF_season
Apparent WP:SNOW? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * close by .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/1988–89_Real_Madrid_CF_season
Also apparent WP:SNOW over here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * close by .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 02:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane_Julia_(2022)
– Many users had agreed to move this page. This discussion is now 7 days so we need closure this discussion. HurricaneEdgar   02:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * close.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 03:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Hypothetical Axis victory in World War II
- The RfC tag has expired since a month, though I decided to wait until the user who uploaded the map that was the original cause of dispute made a comment on it, but he hasn't edited on Wikipedia since months. Its time to close it. 2804:248:FB6F:4400:B021:971A:800D:7D10 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)
Discussion ended about a month ago, well ripe for closure now. Iffy★Chat -- 18:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Done Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
In my view, there is not clear enough consensus for an involved participant to close the discussion. Not a super long one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done - - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387
The RFC was archived without closure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Done — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Heavy metal music
Needs uninvolved editor to evaluate consensus. --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not done. The length of time since the last comment and the subsequent article changes (including a move of the sentence in dispute) make formal closure unsuitable here. Holding a new discussion, or restarting the old, based on the new realities of the article would be much better. Consider this a soft decline: anyone should feel free to re-open this request if they disagree. Pinging . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard
As far as I know, closure reviews at AN don't have a suggested time frame. This one has been open since 29 September, and it's been five days since the last substantive comment on the central question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Already Done by Floquenbeam. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Human-in-the-loop
Could any uninvolved editor examine the consensus for a merge of User-in-the-loop into Human-in-the-loop, involving a discussion where I have been a participant. Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Done Gusfriend (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/The_Iceman_(performer)
Hi. An AfD tag was placed on The Iceman (performer) (a page I created/started) on 13 October 2022. I did not agree that it failed WP:GNG and argued the case (resulting in no further comments). I have since worked to increase the article's integrity by adding quality references to The Independent, the Evening Standard, The Stage, and The List. Nobody else contributed to the discussion until the AfD was relisted on 20 October. Since then, one other editor has suggested we keep it. I've tried to engage further but nobody else is contributing in either direction. I also tried to remove the AfD myself but it was reinstated by the editor who originally placed it. Can an uninvolved editor assess the situation and help to make a decision? Personally I'd like to see the article saved from deletion and the deletion discussion closed but I remain open to further discussion/guidance if necessary. Thanks. Angry Candy (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done by Star Mississippi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stereo Satellite (2nd nomination)
Please review Articles for deletion/Stereo Satellite (2nd nomination) --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * not done This was relisted just over a week ago, it is now queued up in Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 21 - I don't see why this should be prioritised above the six or seven others also awaiting closure. Please let this proceed in the normal AfD process. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)