Starting a chat as we're in discretionary territory. I'm leaning towards promotion, mostly given we're in the upper range of the discretionary zone, but I want to review the RfA at least once more. Maxim (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main reasons for opposing, in rough order of importance, are a lack of content creation, a lack of edit summaries, and the style and substance of the answers to questions (particularly Q7). That said, there are numerous support !votes that mention these concerns and do not find them to be sufficient cause to oppose. As I hinted at in my initial statement, what makes the difference to me in this RfA are the numbers. The arguments in opposition are reasonable, and if we were two percentage points above the floor of the discretionary zone, I would expect to be a solid "no consensus", but as we are in the upper range of the zone, at 73%, to me that pushes it into having sufficient consensus to promote. Maxim (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Maxim for getting this discussion started. I will read through it and offer my thoughts within the next couple of hours. 28bytes (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank Maxim for starting the cratchat, I had read much of the RFA in the last couple of days, but will need some time this evening, and possibly tomorrow morning before I'm ready to comment. ϢereSpielChequers19:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished work and am brain fried. Could be up to 10 hours for a preliminary response as there are so many walls of text on this one. -- Amanda (she/her)22:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
