Wikipedia:Closure requests

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dicklyon temporarily blocked for incivility

(Initiated 80 days ago on 27 February 2024) The block that's being reviewed, expired several days ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Trumpism#RFC: Should the fascism template be included in the article?

(Initiated 440 days ago on 3 March 2023) Nearing a year old, but comments are still trickling in. This is a contentious topic so it should be closed by an experienced editor. Can't close it myself as I participated. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Loki (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people#RfC to limit the inclusion of the deadname of deceased transgender or non-binary persons

(Initiated 158 days ago on 10 December 2023) BilledMammal (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This really needs to be closed. It's been open over two months, and is not developing further. Last !vote was a week ago, and the last before that a week earlier. This is just dragging out. As VPPOL-originated major RfCs go, the !vote section is comparatively short, and the bulk of the side discussion is between two editors about an alternative/variant proposal (which has some opposition and some support, but was not addressed by most commenters).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been open way too long. I can do the close, but given the volume it'll take a while to sort through everything. I can probably have it done by tonight (US time), otherwise sometime tomorrow. @IOHANNVSVERVS: Thanks for making an attempt. Something like this probably falls under WP:BADNAC as "likely to be controversial", but it's good that someone at least tried to close this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

DoneIOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the conclusion of the close, but that RFC deserved something more thoughtful than a four word sentence. Nemov (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, maybe you're right. I lack experience. Thanks for the feedback and I'll refrain from closing any other discussions until I've looked into this aspect of closing further. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: will you please self-revert the close and let someone more experienced close this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh genocide#RFC on the victims of the Bangladesh genocide

(Initiated 152 days ago on 16 December 2023) RfC in a contentious topic area. Malerisch (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that this will not be acted on until at least 30 days from the date that the RfC was opened, and perhaps longer if the discussion hasn't naturally died down by then. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

voorts, is there a strict rule that RfCs can only be closed after 30 days? I didn't see one in the rules above. One reason that I added this request is because I believe that the discussion has stabilized: there's only been one new !vote in the last week (or at least, that will be true in a few hours). Malerisch (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a strict rule, but the only reasons to end an RfC before 30 days are if it's withdrawn, for procedural reasons, etc., not just because conversation is slowing down (and it hasn't really here; there's been a new !vote or two every few days). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The 30-day period is also not a bright-line rule, it's mentioned purely because that's the point after which Legobot will remove the {{rfc}} tag and delist the RfC statement from WP:RFC/HIST etc. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've looked at this with a view to closing and I've found it hard to work with. The RfC is framed as a binary choice between saying the victims were Bengalis and saying they're Bengali Hindus; but that's illogical because those options aren't mutually exclusive. Surely the article could explain that the victims were Bengalis, and particularly, disproportionately, but far from exclusively, Bengali Hindus; and that some Hindu nationalists have subsequently adopted the genocide for political purposes and framed it in ways that fit their preferred narrative. I wonder whether the locus of dispute is actually what to say in the infobox, which usually needs a one-word or two-word summary? If so then the RfC asked the wrong question.
  IMV analyzing that discussion as a closer, iff we treat the various participants as being in good faith, then the correct, policy-compliant, consensus-respecting outcome would be to say that there's no consensus about what to say in the "target" parameter in the infobox, so that parameter should be blanked, and that the lead shouldn't claim that the targets were Bengali Hindus but instead explain the true situation using more words than that.
  But unfortunately, that discussion is making my sock-sense tingle and I wouldn't be willing to say all those participants were in good faith. It's a contentious topic area with politically-motivated editors. The best way forward might be to re-run the RfC asking separate questions about the infobox and the lead paragraph. With a friendly sysop's help, you could set up the RfC on a semi-protected subpage, which I think would help to manage the disruption.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't view the dispute as primarily about the infobox—previous edit-warring was not particularly focused on the infobox, but also on the lead and the short description. Wikipedia:Requests for comment says that [i]f you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question. No one did that or raised any other issues with the RfC question, and only two editors (not including an IP) !voted for anything other than the two options presented, so I don't think that the RfC is framed poorly.

I'm not a fan of sockpuppetry or canvassing either, but I don't think that's a reason to invalidate an RfC entirely. For example, although this recent RfC in another contentious topic area also experienced canvassing, the closer wrote the following: There was concern about canvassing, evaluating the concerns including checking the edit history of many individual editors it seems likely that canvassing did in small part affect the discussion. This does not mean we can't, with care, find a rough consensus in the discussion. Template:Not a ballot says that consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. An IP editor has also pointed out this reddit discussion on the right-wing r/IndiaSpeaks subreddit, whose top comment directly links to the reddit thread mentioned by others and which received far more attention. Malerisch (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@S Marshall: just checking in to see what's going on with this close since it's been listed here a while. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've commented on how difficult it is to close, but I haven't volunteered to close it.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Working ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Malerisch. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awdal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 144 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles

(Initiated 141 days ago on 27 December 2023) As the title suggests, this RfC was a follow-up to a previous discussion. The RfC discussion covers WP:AT, WP:NCDAB, style/grammar, and accessibility. Last comment was on 3 February. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, courtesy ping to voorts and SMcCandlish. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 22:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel#RfC on Hamas denial in lead section

(Initiated 139 days ago on 29 December 2023) Discussion has slowed and this is ready to close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Done - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You have participated in disputes in this topic area and as such shouldn’t be closing discussions, request you self revert and allow for another closer. nableezy - 17:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought uninvolved meant uninvolved in the specific discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, "involvement" means participation in any discussions in the topic area, especially the current war, as noted below. I appreciate your prompt correction of your good-faith error. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Another involved editor, this time @Kashmiri has closed this RFC and archived it. Request you self revert as well. Nemov (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, if you have edited anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, much less this current war, you should not be closing RFCs in the topic area. nableezy - 18:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes he closed the discussion despite being clearly involved and then, a minute later, archived it! Amazing. I have left a note on User:Kashmiri's talk page requesting that he revert his "closure." Also I believe that the RfC should be reinstated and left open for a period of time, given that there has been a new development in this area (a UN report concerning the sexual assaults). Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

it's been open for two months, I think thats quite enough. nableezy - 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

A week or so more won't do any harm. I note that the last comment was just a day ago, so it's still active. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been open for over 60 days. Stick a fork in this please. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

One sticks a fork in things that are done. This one is not. It's really quite active. Last !vote before the "close" was 3 March, and previous to that a spirited discussion in the Survey section. And now a UN report that could conceivably impact upon the outcome. This is why the drafters of WP:RFC, in their wisdom, gave editors the ability to relist RfCs. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussions around that topic have been highly active since October and will likely continue, but we should only extend RFCs if there's hope a consensus will form. This just seems to be dragging out a deadlock even longer. Nemov (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The UN report may or may not change the consensus or lack of same. Prior to the two abortive closes, every single !vote took place prior to its release. Therefore a close now would be premature and I imagine the RfC would be restarted sooner rather than later. We've had RMs restart just about immediately and without significant news impacting the outcome. Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Done. With thanks to Coretheapple for his statement of position above, a close of this is clearly long overdue.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#RfC on genocide accusation in lead

(Initiated 135 days ago on 2 January 2024) Discussion has slowed and ready to close. JDiala (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media

(Initiated 131 days ago on 6 January 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment was 13 January. TarnishedPath^talk 07:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evaluation of Vector 2022

(Initiated 129 days ago on 8 January 2024) Phase I should have proposals where there is consensus picked out now so we can actually formally propose these improvements to the WMF. Awesome Aasim 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Nick McKenzie#RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media

(Initiated 129 days ago on 9 January 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote occurred on the 15th of January. TarnishedPath^talk 03:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath:  Done JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocides in history (1946 to 1999)#Request for Comment: 1948 Palestinian expulsion

(Initiated 128 days ago on 9 January 2024) BilledMammal (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done BilledMammal ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lily Gladstone#Request for comment on Native in the lead

(Initiated 123 days ago on 14 January 2024) This discussion could use an official close as I suspect the question will come up again. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#What is the reliability of NGO Monitor?

(Initiated 115 days ago on 22 January 2024) nableezy - 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nableezy - Nemov (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks

(Initiated 101 days ago on 5 February 2024) Shouldn't be a super difficult close. IMO consensus is fairly obvious. Loki (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Very likely to be a contentious close and one which requires an admin with extensive experience of WP:BLP policies. WCM_email 17:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's a pretty easy close, actually. Loki (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue is the large number of editors who see this as a WP:GREATWRONG issue and wishing to denounce Tim Hunt as a sexist misogynist. I can see many admins looking at the toxic nature of the discussion and wanting nothing to do with the closure and to be frank I wouldn't blame them. Applying our BLP policies and ignoring the out of policy arguments I suspect the result would be very different from the one that you earnestly expect. Not least of which being that a post hoc document written two weeks after an event is not the accurate transcript everyone is portraying it as. WCM_email 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:North_Korea#RfC_about_government_type_infobox

(Initiated 94 days ago on 13 February 2024) I'm replacing this request, which got removed because the OP left it unsigned; but it's clearly an appropriate and valid closure request that needs an external closer.—S Marshall T/C 15:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamils#RfC_about_inclusion_of_additional_name_for_an_ethnic_group

(Initiated 77 days ago on 29 February 2024)

Most editors barring one agree that an alternative name of the ethnic group in question can also be included in the lede. Enough discussion had already gone on above it since 7 February 2024. I think it can be closed. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#RfC: Red_Ventures

(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 January 2024) I would like an RfC on designating Red Ventures unreliable closed and added to WP:RSP. [1] The consensus is decently clear but given the impact a formal close would be appreciated especially on whether it applies to print media. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) ~

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	17	36
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	52	70
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

Other types of closing requests

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina#Merger proposal lists of dukes of Bosnia

(Initiated 331 days ago on 20 June 2023) Messy merge proposal, no cmts since July. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia)#Split:_To_Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia,_1980)

(Initiated 268 days ago on 23 August 2023) The discussion on whether or not to split this page has been open for months with no administrator response and appears to have been passed by consensus. Discussion needs to be closed so the original proposition can be fulfilled. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion on whether or not to split this page has been open for months with no administrator response and appears to have been passed by consensus. Discussion needs to be closed so the original proposition can be fulfilled. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown:  Done JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's greatly appreciated GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should WP:USPLACE apply to US territories?

(Initiated 197 days ago on 1 November 2023)

Discussion seems to have died down. -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paraparaumu#Merger_proposal

(Initiated 178 days ago on 20 November 2023) Nominator has withdrawn their proposal and asked for someone uninvolved to close the discussion, no new comments in over a month. Turnagra (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Turnagra:  Done JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you! Turnagra (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Magikarp and Gyarados#Merge proposal for Magikarp and Gyarados

(Initiated 160 days ago on 8 December 2023) Could use a third party to determine consensus if any. Discussion has ground to a halt at this point, with the last comment being on January 18.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man:  Done. Are you going to merge the articles? Otherwise, place them at the merger holding cell. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Ian#Split Florida impacts

(Initiated 155 days ago on 14 December 2023) – Been open for a few months, needs closure. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is stalled and could benefit from closure. 71.190.208.91 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lionel Messi#Career split proposal

(Initiated 133 days ago on 4 January 2024) — There's a clear consensus to split the "Club career" and "International career" sections into a single new article, however, I'd like for an uninvolved editor to parse what the terms of the split should be according to consensus, since there were varying ideas introduced by those in support of the split as to how it should be conducted. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Restored again, pending a proper closure. — AFC Vixen 🦊 17:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done There was only one !vote suggesting that they be split into separate articles, and the rest of the comments appeared to be generally about trimming things, but that can be done after the split as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 131 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 427#What is the reliability of Mondoweiss?

(Initiated 130 days ago on 7 January 2024) RSN discussion archived, needs a close.Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Physics Wallah#Proposed_merge_of_Alakh_Pandey_into_Physics_Wallah

(Initiated 124 days ago on 13 January 2024) Merge discussion that has gotten a (imo) bit messy. Sohom (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 14:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2009 Atlantic hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Fred (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season

(Initiated 111 days ago on 26 January 2024) Has run its course. 192.226.87.178 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:June 2021 North American storm complex#Merge

(Initiated 96 days ago on 10 February 2024) Ongoing for a month, stalled.96.250.92.78 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:USFL Draft#Requested move 13 February 2024

(Initiated 93 days ago on 13 February 2024) It's been over two weeks, since RM was opened. It's been well attended & participation has sorta ended three days ago. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone want to close the RM? GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There's actually a huge backlog at WP:RM. Anyone available to work on closing some of those? Dicklyon (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done by BD2412 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just this one, though, not the huge backlog, which remains. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Sister: North Korea's Kim Yo Jong, the Most Dangerous Woman in the World#Requested move 19 February 2024

(Initiated 87 days ago on 19 February 2024) Relatively short discussion involving two editors. Renaming discussion has been inactive for multiple days. Needs closure. AlbertBF-WIR (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024_Kansas_City_parade_shooting#Requested_move_22_February_2024

(Initiated 84 days ago on 22 February 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates#FGTC Reforms – Part 1

(Initiated 81 days ago on 25 February 2024) Discussion seems to have largely run its course. If enacted, I can lead the appropriate changes, since some are a bit complex & time consuming. Aza24 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident#Requested move 29 February 2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 29 February 2024) This RM has only been open for a day. But it's approximately 31 support, 10 oppose so is approaching WP:SNOW. It's also a current event. May be a candidate for a WP:IAR early closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

With that many opposes, I'm sceptical that it's appropriate to have such an early closure. It might not run the full 7 days, but I'd suggest giving it a few more at least.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Take it to the RM

As of me writing this, the support to rename outweighs opposes almost 3-to-1 (more specifically approximately 43 supports to 15 opposes). To me it seems like a clear consensus to change the name. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 17:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Looking at the responses, most of the support !votes are simply votes - they lack evidence or policy-based arguments. I also suspect many were brought here by Twitter posts like this one. I think at the very least we should let this run for a couple of weeks, to let non-canvassed editors balance out the canvassed ones - or even close it on procedural grounds, and open a new one when the situation settles down. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Per #2 and #3 at the top of this page, this page is for neutrally and briefly requesting a close review and it is not the place to continue the discussion. If a closer believes that there is no consensus, the discussion will be relisted. Raise your arguments for a procedural close at the RM so that others can respond. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Reasons were provided here why this could be closed early; it is appropriate, in my opinion, to provide in the same locations why it should not be - or why it should be closed procedurally. BilledMammal (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC) There are only so many ways to reiterate the same detailed policy points made by other users - to discount users for saying "per other user" or referencing something that is essentially a policy without explicitly citing a policy is counterproductive. Also not sure if canvassing is an actual concern due to the articles protection, and you even thought a canvassing warning was not necessary, but now are saying that the vote should be extended due to allegations you are making of canvassing? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC) First, there are several votes that saying nothing other than "Support". Second, then there are !votes like What's next? Calling the Tiananmen Square Massacre the "June 4th incident"?, which is neither saying "per other user" or referencing something that is essentially a policy without explicitly citing a policy. Such votes include some of those which are widely cited as "per X". Finally, if you read what I said, I didn't think a canvassing warning was necessary for the entire talk page; I did think one was necessary for the RM. BilledMammal (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC) @LegalSmeagolian and @BilledMammal: Please take this to the actual RM. Editors who watch this page are not looking for a secondary discussion about the RM and as I said before, it's unfair to editors who don't watch this page and don't know that there's anything here to respond to. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) I also suspect many were brought here by Twitter posts like this one. The talk page is extended confirmed protected. I suspect that completely prevents Twitter canvassing, as random meatpuppets on Twitter are not extended confirmed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Perhaps but it has 570K views the last I looked. That would rope in quite a few extended-confirms. A "snow" close after that would be problematic. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Based on what? nableezy - 21:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) How is it problematic? What proof do you have that the Twitter post influenced any of the ECF users? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 55,613 page views (article), 12,879 (talk page) from pageviews.wmcloud.org Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC) I think this is getting pretty clearly into SNOW territory if somebody wants to do this instead of dragging it out further. nableezy - 18:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Indeed. Let's get it to the new title so we can start working on the next RM, and so that the current RM discussion doesn't get any bigger / harder to close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Rough count as of this comment is >70 in favor of the move and >20 opposed. I know that we don't use a count of up-or-down votes to make decisions, but there is a building consensus, and most of the newer contributions are just echoing previous ones. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Worth noting that many of the support votes (and many of the oppose votes) are in favour of a move, but not the proposed move. BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) A closer can determine if Al-Rashid massacre or Flour massacre is what has consensus, but clearly one of those two does and this should be closed. People seem to just want to prolong it for whatever reason, but this is way past super-majority support for a change. nableezy - 00:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done by robertsky. nableezy - 13:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)