Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 41

Completed - (Initiated 591 days ago on 25 February 2025)

This has been the subject of perennial change and disputation at the article without resolution, so it really needs a decisive and thoughtful closer; a "no consensus" close wouldn't really help anything since it's natural to have a location identifier in the first sentence, and it's not clear if there has ever been a status quo consensus. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to take this on. Left guide (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Dionysodorus (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 483 days ago on 13 June 2025)
Most of the discussion was over by 17 June, and since then there has been only one response, on 7 July, which was 22 days ago. The RfC tag was removed and it looks like the topic is unlikely to attract more attention, so it's probably time for a closure. Impru20^talk 09:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Dionysodorus (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 481 days ago on 14 June 2025)
This looks as if it may be No Consensus, and I launched the RFC, and don't want to make a conentious close. Will an admin or other experienced editor please assess whether there is consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 466 days ago on 30 June 2025)
Last comment was 2 weeks ago and RfC tag is about to be removed. Probably not a fun one to close, not formatted well (or people didn't follow the formatting) and lengthy and repeated comments on source analysis, but only 6 participants. Someone will be getting a thanks Kowal2701 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 456 days ago on 10 July 2025)
This discussion is longer than a typical RfD with multiple opinions and alternatives proposed. It follows a series of RMs and RfDs on related topics. The last substantive comment was left on July 26. Note that this RfD was initiated on July 10 but is currently sitting at the August 3 page, reflecting the date it was relisted. This was the second relisting. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}} by editor UTOPES. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 421 days ago on 14 August 2025)
Unanimous support to undo an undiscussed split and creation of a disambiguation page. Please could this be closed. Technical assistance is likely to be required to enact. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Isn't this a case where consensus is obvious (so not necessary to list here, as explained in the lead of this page), and you could just go ahead and implement the move without a formal close, asking for technical assistance at WP:RMTR if needed? Dionysodorus (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} by User:KylieTastic. EdJohnston (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 427 days ago on 8 August 2025)
The reasons why will close requested move from Skydance Media to Skydance Pictures because requested move not moved, and also TarnishedPath relisting two times. LogoFan2007 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 422 days ago on 13 August 2025)
Discussion at this point is largely about asking why this has not been closed yet. The reason why it has not been closed is that has become a great monster with tentacles, and admins may be concerned about being strangled by the creature. Alexander the Great dealt with the Gordian knot and concluded that his sword was the right tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. Well, that was a slog... Salvio ^giuliano 17:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 413 days ago on 21 August 2025)
Discussion started a week ago, last comment on 22 August, about to be archived if not closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 520 days ago on 6 May 2025)
As it says on the tin. Last comment was in June. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• {{done}}.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

(Initiated 452 days ago on 13 July 2025)
Would an experienced editor determine consensus for this discussion before it gets archived? Interstellarity (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

{{not done}} This appears to be a preliminary conversation, not an RfC. I don't see any consensus for anything there. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 451 days ago on 15 July 2025)
Will an experienced editor please close this RFC? I initiated this RFC and tried to be neutral but have an opinion and don't think I should close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)}}

• Sure. {{done}}—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 446 days ago on 20 July 2025)
– I have requested move for Government of the Grand National Assembly quite while ago and now the request is not relisted or done anything till now kinda abandoned. Could an uninvolved page mover/admin please close and perform the move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asianeditorz (talk • contribs) 20:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 13:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 426 days ago on 8 August 2025)
– I am unsure if we have reached consensus after a fortnight's discussion. An uninvolved editor would be very welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreeReader (talk • contribs) 00:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Tick}} Closed by Pppery. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 01:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 442 days ago on 23 July 2025)
Discussion seems to have settled down with no new comments for 9 days, consensus is not immediately clear so I'd like to request an uninvolved editor close it DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to ask for a closer as well. Discussion petered out a while ago in a (to my mind) indeterminate state and could not be revived even after advertising the RfC on related Wikiprojects. Einsof (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Second this. Although consensus does slightly favor blue Zohran yellow Cuomo. Orca🐋 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}} I have closed the RFC as no consensus. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions on this close. Pinging @DimensionalFusion, @Einsof, and @Orca so that you are all aware of this being closed. Gramix13 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gramix13: ok but what about the mismatching colors? Based on your count a majority favor yellow Cuomo and it is unreasonable for colors to be mismatching on the page (currently yellow Zohran in infobox, yellow Cuomo for all other maps lower on the page). So can I change the infobox maps back to blue Zohran yellow Cuomo based on slight support for this and the necessity for matching color schemes? Plus, as the mapmaker for all of the accurate precinct and AD maps, I will be making matching state senate and city council district maps only if this solution is allowed. So can I do this? Orca🐋 (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Also how are these arguments equally strong? There is a well established precedent of all wikipedia downballot Democratic primary winners colored as blue. You will never find a single instance where this is an exception. Orca🐋 (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The campaign color thing is not a precedent. It is completely made up. Orca🐋 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And also it was only pre-June 7th like that because Cuomo was assumed the winner. Orca🐋 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Orca🐋 (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to offer an opinion or intervene unless there has been a new conduct issue. You must defer to consensus,nhowever much you dislike it. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: so you are saying I can make the change and no punishment? Orca🐋 (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If you make changes according to the outcome of the RfC, you wouldn't be disruptive. However, I don't get the impression you want to do that. If you return to your previous conduct, you will face editing restrictions again, for a much longer term. Acroterion (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: the RfC resulted in no consensus though. And the admin counted a majority in favor of yellow Cuomo which I want to change it to. So would you say making these changes is in line with the outcome of the RfC? Because there needs to be a consistent color scheme across the page. I am not being disruptive I literally want to add more maps to the page and make the color scheme consistent. So is this fine? Orca🐋 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on the RfC outcome my suggested changes are in line with it, no? Orca🐋 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Leave it alone. You are far too deeply invested in the matter to be editing it. Acroterion (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Acroterion: but you just said "if you make changes according to the outcome of the RfC, you wouldn't be disruptive", so why are you saying I cannot edit it now? Do I have to ask another editor to make this change? Literally all I want to do is change the infobox back to what it was in this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_New_York_City_Democratic_mayoral_primary&oldid=1302219876 And also I want to add more maps (state senate district level, city council district level) to the page once this correction is made, am I allowed to do that? Orca🐋 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Not reverting to that version btw, just copying the infobox over. Orca🐋 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh and keeping the new Zohran photo Orca🐋 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And keeping label as Final round instead of runoff Orca🐋 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 618 days ago on 29 January 2025)
There has been a lot of input and no new input for months. I think this is ready to be closed. Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 09:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 585 days ago on 2 March 2025)
No activity for four months; some debate within the thread about what the consensus is, and I don't feel confident closing it myself. Thanks! Gaelan 💬✏️ 12:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 449 days ago on 17 July 2025)
Please could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? The discussion has a bearing on other articles as well, such as Caroline Dinenage and Emily Thornberry, and editors have been editing these articles back and forth for a while. A clear closure of this discussion would make it easier to justify and maintain a consistent approach. Dionysodorus (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}} by editor estar8806. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 465 days ago on 1 July 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 410 days ago on 25 August 2025)
— not sure what the benefit of allowing this to run any longer (t · c) buidhe 00:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 2299 days ago on 23 June 2020)
– This is an old RfC from ~5 years ago. It was never closed, and it's not clear to me what was the consensus, if any. But it is used right now as an argument in a small revert war. (Just two reverts, nothing serious so far...). Before it gets any worse, can we get a neutral verdict on what, if any, consensus can be determined from that discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

{{not done}} Editors should stop edit warring and seek consensus today, not try to interpret a consensus that never was from five years ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 430 days ago on 4 August 2025)
Cent-listed. New !votes still come in, but do not seem to be developing the consensus further. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 406 days ago on 28 August 2025)
Only active discussion on a ten-day-old log page, should be closed or relisted. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 443 days ago on 22 July 2025)
– Previously relisted once; last comment was made on August 14. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}} by editor Howardcorn33. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 529 days ago on 28 April 2025)
I previously listed this here for a closure and was provided guidance that I should notify WT:AT, WT:NCGN, and WP:VPP or WP:VPPR of the RFC and allow it to run another 30 days. Notifications were left at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Convention_for_naming_Australian_place_articles, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Convention_for_naming_Australian_place_articles, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_204#Convention_for_naming_Australian_place_articles and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_219#Convention_for_naming_Australian_place_articles a bit over 30 days ago. Can we please get an independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 527 days ago on 29 April 2025)
I believe this should now be closed, as the dispute and edit-warring are continuing. The tag was removed a long time ago. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 455 days ago on 11 July 2025)
This is the 2nd RFC on this topic this year and it's ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes please. It's been nearly three weeks since the last comment, and this issue is still causing disagreements on edits, so it would be beneficial to have a timely resolution. Stonkaments (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 2 September 2025)
An overwhelming majority of users seem to have a clear consensus to retain the current image. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 00:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}} GoldRomean (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Note @Freedoxm don't forget to add the {{initated}} in the future :). GoldRomean (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 441 days ago on 25 July 2025)
There is virtually unanimous opinion here and is unlikely to change in consensus, but since I am involved as the proposer and due to the one opposition it requires an impartial closer for the discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 454 days ago on 12 July 2025)
– Previously relisted twice; last comment was made on August 7. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 484 days ago on 12 June 2025)
It has been a week since the last response. Briefly, the discussion centered on the primary/secondary nature of a source and how to include it, mainly regarding appropriate wording. Some additional sources were also suggested and discussed. Dekadoka (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Compassionate727 Its been a week, do you still expect to close this discussion? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm still working on it. Because the outcome will possibly be contentious and the discussion itself is quite complex with several overlapping issues, I am trying to be extra careful. If somebody else wants to close it before me, go ahead. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 459 days ago on 7 July 2025)
Would an admin or someone who has the right permissions determine consensus for this discussion before it gets archived? Interstellarity (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 07:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 458 days ago on 7 July 2025)
Seems to be heading towards a close, and will expire in two days. Non-obvious enough to need a close. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have slowed and was delisted from CENT. It's also more than a month old, so overall seems ready for a close. Sdkb ^talk 22:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

To editor Sdkb: had to adjust your request because it had already been entered by editor Aaron Liu above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Doing. -- Beland (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 449 days ago on 17 July 2025)
I would appreciate someone taking a look and closing this one. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 446 days ago on 19 July 2025)

1) It is Arab–Israeli conflict-related. 2) Several editors have made some pretty strong arguments. 3) I started and participated in it. Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 428 days ago on 7 August 2025)
RfC has expired. I would close it myself, but as the RfC opener I am not uninvolved. I am happy to make the edits necessary to implement the consensus once closed, however. Tomiĉo (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 480 days ago on 16 June 2025)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted for a second time on 19 July. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Final relist today. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 461 days ago on 5 July 2025)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted again (2nd). P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 18:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 429 days ago on 5 August 2025)
The last comment was 9 days ago. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 463 days ago on 3 July 2025)
last message was 26 days ago, would be nice if someone closes it so that I can start working on the article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 453 days ago on 13 July 2025)
This proposal has been open for over 6 weeks, and last activity was on 15 July. Brat Forelli🦊 20:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 453 days ago on 13 July 2025)
Open over a month. Not unanimous and requires a neutral closer please. Many thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 425 days ago on 9 August 2025)
1) It is Arab–Israeli conflict-related. 2) There are no Supports other than OP with six people weighing in, last reply by OP four days ago. Upon closing, please open Talk:Anti-Palestinianism#Requested_move_16_August_2025_(Anti-Palestinian_racism) which was already created. I didn't realize at the time that two move requests couldn't exist simultaneously. Lumbering in thought (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

{{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 404 days ago on 31 August 2025)
The close should be uncontroversial as there is unanimous support and no objections to the alternative capitalisation proposed. However technical assistance is required to carry out the move because of an unnecessary DAB and an existing redirect to the unnecessary DAB. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 404 days ago on 31 August 2025)
Discussion has stabilised, no new/unique arguments have been brought forth since 5-6 September, consensus has clearly been established, it's highly unlikely further discussion will meaningfully affect the outcome, as there is a borderline WP:AVALANCHE of support for the proposal. Keeping the discussion open at this point only makes it easier for the discussion to veer off on tangents, as is the case with the ongoing WP:AGF violations and WP:ACCUSATIONs going around between a couple of users at the moment.

To summarise, the discussion of the proposal came to a clear consensus very quickly and has a snowball's chance of failure, requesting a neutral third party (sysop or otherwise) to formally close the thread so as to avoid an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlowstoneUnknown (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here, this looked like a very biased summary. Quickly skimming through the discussion, I confirm my suspicions. I might read the discussions more thoroughly and close it (currently likely to be No Consensus). But given sockpuppet allegations in the same thread, it might benefit from a slightly more experienced eye anyway? Soni (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see what's biased about my summary, given the sheer amount of contributors !voting in support of the proposal, even, in some cases, against their own stated personal opinions, due to the sourcing provided. The sockpuppet allegations shouldn't be used to discredit the arguments made nor the sources provided in my opinion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Disclaimer, this should not be construed as me attempting to continue the discussion from the thread on this page by any means, I just want to clarify my case for the WP:SNOWCLOSE

  The only stated arguments against the proposal were:

  
  

  User:Halbared providing other sources which didn't contradict the "far-right" label (except one source which explicitly stated that the party wasn't far-right, but was criticised by myself and other editors for being a WP:BLOG)

  User:Defacto suggesting the sources were cherrypicked by the IP user (which, true or not, WP:CHERRYPICK states is not prohibited by policy: Outside of Wikipedia, in many media, cherrypicking has a wider meaning that is not entirely useful for the editing of Wikipedia. [...] cherrypicking sources from all the sources on the subject.[...] However, Wikipedia has no such requirement for its editors.)

  User:Spy-Cicle citing a 3-month-old RfC which was closed without consensus (whilst incorrectly claiming that the rfc resulted in subsequent consensus on the issue)

  
  

  Everything else in that thread, including the allegations of sockpuppetry, the non-analogous "bald-headed men" allegory (which myself and two other editors pointed out the illegitimacy of in detail within the thread), the non-argument of placing WP:NEWSORG sources above scholarly literature, and any other tangents that came up in the thread shouldn't be taken into account for judging the consensus of the thread, the potential sockpuppetry can be handled in the relevant SPI, whilst the sources, their credentials, and their content stand on their own. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}}. Soni (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 410 days ago on 25 August 2025)
Discussion has two proposals which could be closed in parts: one on an editor's behavior and one on what level of protection the related article & talk require. While a bit of discussion has continued on the editor, the last !vote was on 26 August 2025. Not sure if the request is too soon for the protection level proposal (last !vote on 27 August 2025). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Partly done Closed the behavioral component. I'll leave the page protection issue to another admin. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} by The Bushranger on 14 September 2025 Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 418 days ago on 17 August 2025)
There seems to be a clear consensus, however the previous closure has been reverted.--2620:67:0:b002:6092:102e:be5a:c4f3 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}} — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 02:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 460 days ago on 5 July 2025)
Relisted three times (plus a fourth to get it out of the backlog). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: This was initiated July 5, not July 12. I have edited {{initiated}} accordingly. I was coming here to add this to CR myself. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}} by Steel1943. -- Beland (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 438 days ago on 27 July 2025)
Open for more than a month, last relisted 16 August. Long overdue for a close. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 427 days ago on 7 August 2025)
RfC has expired with seemingly no desire among participants to relist.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Doing... TW 21:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} The Wikipedant's closure seems to have stalled. I have boldly done a closure, hopefully not stepping on any toes. -- Beland (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 403 days ago on 31 August 2025)
The discussion seems to have a clear consensus. HurricaneEdgar 21:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} I have closed this. -Darouet (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 394 days ago on 10 September 2025)
– This seems to have a consensus of "Speedy keep". RaptorsFan2019 (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 424 days ago on 11 August 2025)
RM initiated by User:QalasQalas, who later closed the discussion as "No consensus" despite being involved. I am also involved; requesting an uninvolved close here. 162 etc. (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} by Ivey; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 444 days ago on 22 July 2025)
Not technically an RfC; this did not feel contentious enough to avoid closure given consensus went a clear direction and the discussion had slowed. Has since been reverted as I had contributed prior so seeking a second opinion. MB2437 23:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This was initially listed under the RfCs section. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • {{done}} -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 439 days ago on 27 July 2025)
– Please close this discussion re where consensus lies. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: @Mitch Ames: @Andy Dingley: {{close}} --Lenny Marks (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 422 days ago on 12 August 2025)
Discussion started two weeks ago, last comment four days ago. Since discussion has mostly stabilized, just thought I'd list it here. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 12:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If no one is interested in a lone close, are there any experienced closers willing to be part of a panel? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} at my own peril! -- Beland (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 435 days ago on 30 July 2025)
Can an experienced admin review this RFC? There are multiple calls for a procedural close after this was opened 68 days after Dr vulpes closed a similar discussion on May 23rd. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that the RfC has recently expired

However, there is still ongoing discussion, and several Wiki projects have been recently notified . Bogazicili (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I came here to request this close.

The RfC has run for 47 days. Over 90 editors have commented. Approximately 55 favor the proposed change, and c. 35 oppose it (I include, in that group, arguments for a procedural close). There is extensive commentary and data analysis from editors.

Since the RfC started, several additional actors have weighed in, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, and Physicians for Human Rights–Israel.

I think there's sufficient material for a close and I appreciate the editor who takes the time to do this. -Darouet (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC tag was re-added by Lewisguile Bogazicili (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll remove that. Didn't see this before. Lewisguile (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 426 days ago on 9 August 2025)
What flag or flags should be used in the infobox? Discussion has stalled since a couple of weeks with no clear consensus. —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 11:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Doing. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 425 days ago on 10 August 2025)
Cent-listed, main question's discussion doesn't seem to be developing (though maybe the other ones—Q2+, subquestions, or whatchamacallit—should remain open). Aaron Liu (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 413 days ago on 22 August 2025)
Could any editor that has the ability to remove the contents link in the sidebar close this discussion and evaluate consensus? Interstellarity (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a discussion fork of an above archived discussion for which closure has already been requested. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I closed the earlier discussion, which had little participation and got archived before this one started. This one seems to have been better advertised, so I was just going to let it run as normal. -- Beland (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} @Interstellarity —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 3 September 2025)
Discussion has stabilised, appears to me that a consensus has formed and I would like an uninvolved editor to formally close the RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlowstoneUnknown (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

(Initiated 414 days ago on 21 August 2025)
The last message was 10 days ago, given that I am involved it requires someone to close the discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 410 days ago on 25 August 2025)
The last message was 12 days ago. There is 1 strongly oppose !vote, while 5 !votes have been cast for delete / redirect / merge (all of which result in the same outcome in this TfD, as it did in the preceding parts 1 and 2). For some reason it was not relisted, but that would seems unlikely to affect the outcome. NLeeuw (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 3 September 2025)
Cricket games often tend to last many days but the weather clearly shows snowfall approaching, presenting us with the opportunity to free the grounds. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} The Gnome loving the puns ;) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 16:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 435 days ago on 30 July 2025)
As discussed in the RM itself, Talk:Luigi (character) § Requested move 13 June 2025 may imply a consensus on the primary topic (or lack thereof). This close should say if that has changed to avoid ambiguity in interpreting consensus, just to be safe. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} by Amakuru (thanks!) -- Beland (talk) 08:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 404 days ago on 30 August 2025)
This has remained open for over two weeks, far beyond the standard 7-day period for DRV. It needs a closer to assess the consensus of participants regarding how the AfD should be closed. WP:DRV#Closing reviews has general instructions, and WP:Deletion review/Administrator instructions provides technical instructions on how to operate the closing template. Left guide (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} by S Marshall; thanks! -- Beland (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 399 days ago on 5 September 2025)
This is a moratorium discussion which has attracted 105 comments, the last of which was 6 days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 01:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 399 days ago on 5 September 2025)

This is a contentitious topic so an uninvolved editor closing the discussion would be highly beneficial to prevent further edit warring. OceanHok (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 399 days ago on 5 September 2025)

90 comments, 9 people in discussion which has died down. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

{{Done}} —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 440 days ago on 26 July 2025)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 435 days ago on 31 July 2025)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 415 days ago on 20 August 2025)
After a series of RFCs, this is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. -- Beland (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 410 days ago on 24 August 2025)
Contentious discussion with meatpuppetry has stabilised after an ECP was implemented. An uninvolved admin should close given the current page protections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. -- Beland (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 431 days ago on 3 August 2025)
Open for almost two months, last relisted 15 September. Involves a guideline still at RFC in addition to extensive discussion within the RM itself. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

{{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 430 days ago on 5 August 2025)
Oldest RM in backlog, WP:RUSUKR. CNC (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 430 days ago on 5 August 2025)
Lots of comments and both-sides-now evidence, only one comment in the almost-month since the last of several relistings. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. -- Beland (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 394 days ago on 10 September 2025)
Votes have died down this week and is due for closing imo, more importantly could do with a decent close being WP:ARBPIA. (involved opinion) CNC (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 386 days ago on 18 September 2025)
There seems to be consensus on behalf of this move; no dissent.Starfishprimo (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

{{already done}} -- Beland (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 390 days ago on 13 September 2025)
This discussion was to try to reach a consensus as to whether a section about the 'Unite the Kingdom rally', held on of 13 September, was an anti-immigration protest and should thus be included in the 2025 British anti-immigration protests article. The discussion has quietened down now, with nothing added for a few days. Can an uninvolved editor close it please, to give us a stake in the ground. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. The consensus was obvious and did not need to be brought here. -- Beland (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 474 days ago on 22 June 2025)
For all of these CfDs, happy to implement whatever the consensus is if the closer needs help with that, since CfD implementation can be a bit arcane. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. -- Beland (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: I don't think that closure really closes the discussion; the dispute was what to do with the contents of the category, to which you didn't provide an answer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Explicit linked to this discussion in the delete message for the category. I assume they have already implemented the consensus and just failed to document what exactly happened beyond deleting the category. Feel free to do some forensics and note what happened to each article in the discussion closure, but given the question is moot that seems like unnecessary busywork to me. -- Beland (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#c-RevelationDirect-20250901020200-Inadvertent_reversal_of_consensus_close_for_Category:Silent_radio_stations re the current unusual state of this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 422 days ago on 12 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 409 days ago on 26 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 447 days ago on 19 July 2025)
- Discussion has puttered out but this looks too contentious to {{Nac}} to me. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 14:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

{{done}} -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 422 days ago on 13 August 2025)
RFC tag was auto removed by the bot, no significant discussion in weeks. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 11:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done cc Locke Cole Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 404 days ago on 31 August 2025)
The discussion has run thirty days, and is ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Doing...--GRuban (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done --GRuban (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 3 September 2025)
Discussion has ended. Uhoj (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done (Simpler than the last one...) TW 19:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@ TW Are you working on this? Uhoj (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Writing the close presently. TW 18:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 450 days ago on 15 July 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 443 days ago on 22 July 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 421 days ago on 14 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 417 days ago on 18 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 409 days ago on 26 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 408 days ago on 26 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 467 days ago on 29 June 2025)
Filing on behalf of 2603:8000:5741:64AB:A9C3:BEE8:7DD5:897C (see User talk:Σ/Archive/2025/October#Election Infobox Color Bar, Remove the color bar? Archive). Please close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Election Infobox Color Bar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 412 days ago on 23 August 2025)
Last comments were on 3 September 2025. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 2 September 2025)
This is ready to be closed. While it has become lengthy and somewhat repetitive, we hope it will not pose too much difficulty for the closing editor. Azor (talk). 13:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 3 September 2025)
No new comments in the last two weeks, ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 392 days ago on 12 September 2025)
A collection of 10 RFCs related to administrator elections. Comments have slowed to a crawl. I think these are ready for closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Done, with help from other closers, because...ten! -- Beland (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 378 days ago on 26 September 2025)
This discussion is ready to be closed. The discussion has been open for more than 7 days and there is no more real activity being made. This discussion in a little lengthy and I don't think anything else said will change the outcome. The tally of this article is 4 keeps to 1 delete. -- MAWJ The Awesome (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 425 days ago on 10 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 424 days ago on 11 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 417 days ago on 18 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 438 days ago on 27 July 2025)
It's in need of closure, and I was involved in the discussion and am therefore unable to close it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 408 days ago on 27 August 2025)
I closed a similar, separate discussion at Talk:Scottish units of measurement#Requested move 27 August 2025. One difference here is that more subjects could be called "English units", and the discussion seems to have started with disagreement over COMMONNAME and determining primary topic (?). I prefer someone more cautious (and well-rested) than I check if this has resolved meanwhile. The more important detail to note is that a !vote was changed twice but only the very initial one was struck. Thank you for bearing with my garrulousness and for spending time examining this RM. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:29, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 383 days ago on 21 September 2025)
– Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 674 days ago on 4 December 2024)

Only 3 comments, but I'm one of them. -- Beland (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: I don't think this discussion needs a formal closure. Unless I'm misreading that, it's pretty obvious that all three people there agree on removing "proposed" and "emergent" buildings. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have removed those sections. Hopefully no one will complain. -- Beland (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@The ed17: My removal was reverted by BlueandWhiteStripes here: Special:diff/1315200670. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: Perhaps more discussion is needed then (or a new RfC?). I personally wouldn't be confident in assigning a a definitive consensus to the 2024 RfC with three participants. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi both. I reverted the edit – apologies, I didn't realise it was an admin concern. Still, I find the suggestion of WP:CRYSTALBALL confusing because there are tens if not hundreds of Skyscraper pages founded on the same template – i.e. with lists of approved, proposed and planned buildings – with a longstanding edict to separate out these lists as required.

The individual entries on this page are far more uniformly and rigorously cited than most, so it would be good to understand why this particular page is being targeted when others are not. BlueandWhiteStripes (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll continue this on the article talk page so this thread can be archived. Thanks for looking at the RFC. -- Beland (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 374 days ago on 30 September 2025)
– The linked page above needs to be moved to Bugolobi. There is a discussion at the talk page which is also linked above, but it is required for a neutral editor to close the discussion, although the consensus is very much clear at the moment. The discussion is located here. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 10:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Not quite 7 days old yet. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Jeffrey34555. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 415 days ago on 19 August 2025)
There is a clear consensus for the proposal, but 1) I started this RfC 2) my English isn't good enough 3) this is about a guideline. Thedarkknightli (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done TW 18:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 381 days ago on 23 September 2025)
Discussion seems to have slowed down, and there seems to be agreement for an IBAN of the filing editor against Randy Kryn, but is the consensus for a 1-way IBAN or a 2-way IBAN? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 420 days ago on 15 August 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Pppery: I closed this. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 527 days ago on 30 April 2025)
This merge request had been outstanding since April. I believe it looks to be a no consensus, but it has been open for so many months now that I think it could be closed out. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 378 days ago on 26 September 2025)
WP:ARBPIA, experienced closer requested. CNC (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth Clearly more people support the move than who oppose it. You just closed it - saying " the oppose rationales are much stronger and policy-based" - you need to explain why. This closure is not appropriate. Please explain your reasoning - or revert the closure. If not, I will challenge it. Cinaroot (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

To editor Cinaroot: I have responded on my discussion page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

See also: Move Review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 413 days ago on 21 August 2025)
I would frame the remaining area of dispute as whether or not to make an exception to MOS:COMMONALITY such that we would use "gaol" instead of "jail" (as a lowercase common noun) for articles that use "Gaol" in a proper noun? If not, "jail" would be used (as a lowercase common noun) if "gaol" is the correct terminology. But perhaps there is some other frame to judge the outcome the closer can see. Previous discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 218#Gaol vs. jail which Xurizuri summarized here as "looks like its wrapped up, with jail preferred except in proper nouns" without formal on-page closure. (I'd like to avoid another unclear resolution if possible.) No comment on current discussion for a week, seems like all relevant arguments have been made. -- Beland (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Beland:  Done Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 415 days ago on 20 August 2025)
Was re-pulled from the archives by another editor; ready to be closed. Some1 (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please! There are no more !votes being added and the #Closure? discussion is veering more and more off topic every day. FaviFake (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Some1 and FaviFake:  Done Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 395 days ago on 9 September 2025)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done CNC (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 401 days ago on 3 September 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Primefac. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 397 days ago on 7 September 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor * Pppery *. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 393 days ago on 10 September 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Primefac. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 405 days ago on 30 August 2025)
Stale discussion with no comments in the past two weeks, and no substantial discussion for three. --Belbury (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Stale sandwich discussion closed. Parse that sentence as you wish. 8) -- Beland (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 382 days ago on 22 September 2025)
While there are virtually no opposes, there are some "comment" !votes that do not really oppose the idea. Merging can also be messy. There's also an ongoing WP:RM which aside from changing the article name also changes the scope of the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done CNC (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 364 days ago on 10 October 2025)
Per WP:SNOW, the discussion seems to be stable. HurricaneEdgar 21:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done FaviFake (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 400 days ago on 3 September 2025)
-- Beland (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Beland: how exactly do we close something that has been archived? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The closer moves it back out of the archive when they close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done @Beland: Moved back to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Bot to make list-defined references editable with the VisualEditor and closed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 395 days ago on 9 September 2025)
If this is closed as unsuccessful, you can ignore the subsection. If it is closed as successful, please make a note of what actions also have to be done (e.g. un-substitution, NOINDEX) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Courtesy ping @Matrix. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 438 days ago on 27 July 2025)
Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Rusalkii. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 360 days ago on 13 October 2025)
A pretty clear consensus was formed before this RFC opened and is forming again. This could be closed to save valuable editor time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 385 days ago on 19 September 2025)
The discussion has remained stable for some time now. The last comment was posted 22 days ago, and the RFC has already concluded. It requires a formal closure. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 363 days ago on 11 October 2025)
Very clear consensus IMO, just don't want to close because I'm involved. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 21:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I think it's clear enough to close even if I'm involved. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 15:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 396 days ago on 8 September 2025)
Discussion was dead for a while but has attracted an uncivil comment, may be worth formally closing. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Rawr. Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 362 days ago on 11 October 2025)
Cinaroot (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 370 days ago on 4 October 2025)
Cinaroot (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 i thought initiated means when i initiated the closure request. You should clarify that edit template Cinaroot (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

never mind. i just didn't read it correctly Cinaroot (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 398 days ago on 6 September 2025)
— This feels like it should receive a formal closure, it stayed on the VP for over a month, 12 editors partecipated and the only opposer didn't have an issue with the mockups. --FaviFake (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Doing... —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 11:26, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 11:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 396 days ago on 7 September 2025)
Ready to be closed by someone familary with BLP. - Nemov (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done, Nemov. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 389 days ago on 14 September 2025)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done, @Beland:. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 357 days ago on 17 October 2025)
Under normal circumstances I would advise to let it run its full course, but it's starting to look quite WP:SNOWy, particularly considering that many opposers made their objection quite early and have since rescinded it. Should note a few opposing points which "hold water" or so to speak have been raised which may be of concern to a potential SNOW close, particularly on the fact he hasn't fully legally rescinded his titles, but I believe they are "put to rest" or so to speak by support arguments on the matter. Could a more experienced closer take a look at this one? Coleisforeditor (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that concerns have been raised over exactly where to move to, but I don't believe that should be too much of a concern on gauging consensus on the move itself. Coleisforeditor (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

This is both contested and a touchy topic, so I'd prefer letting this run the full seven days. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 16:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Done yesterday by Mfield, marking as so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 370 days ago on 4 October 2025)
Disucssion appears to have petered out, and there appears to be consensus for an interaction ban. As I am WP:INVOLVED, and it was a fairly low-participation !vote, requesting an uninvolved formal closure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Rosguill. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 469 days ago on 27 June 2025)
This heated, and highly contentious, discussion has been going on for months. However, it appears that it is ready to be closed. For the purpose of the closer, I have divided the RfC into a "Discussion" and a "Compromise" section. It is riddled with a lot of accusations and editor battling. I am sorry for whoever has to go through this, but it is an important RfC and needs a closure. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 21:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 22:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 384 days ago on 20 September 2025)
RFC tag was recently removed after a month of being listed, there are two questions though the second one is obviously "no change", the former will need some consensus interpretation. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 21:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Ganesha811. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 432 days ago on 3 August 2025)
RfD initiated 65+ days ago, needs closing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 414 days ago on 21 August 2025)
Close or final re-list? There has been no substantive activity since September 15. The second relisting on September 23 garnered no new responses. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 358 days ago on 16 October 2025)
while the consensus is obvious, it has too many items for me to be able to use xfdcloser Oreocooke (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Bunnypranav. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 384 days ago on 19 September 2025)

This discussion was to try to reach a consensus as to whether an increase/decrease icon should be displayed alongside the number of members in political party infoboxes. The discussion has quietened down now, with nothing added for 14 days. Can an uninvolved editor close it please, to give us a stake in the ground. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done LightlySeared (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 378 days ago on 26 September 2025)
This discussion was previously closed, then per this move review, re-listed and re-opened for a further seven days from October 18 onward; we're now on day nine. Paging @GiantSnowman: as the closer of the MR. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No comments from me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Mfield. CNC (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 349 days ago on 25 October 2025)
Unanimous, just needs an uninvolved admin to close and execute. Toadspike [Talk] 13:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Mfield. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 381 days ago on 22 September 2025)
RfC tag has been removed and the discussion seems to be ready to be closed by an uninvolved editor. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Please hold off on closing it for the moment. I need to write up some technical notes. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC) (Added strikeout to be clear. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC))

Done. The additional technical notes are now posted in the RFC discussion. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 375 days ago on 29 September 2025)
Started out as a discussion, was involuntarily forced into an RM, all discussion subsections should be considered together, this link is to the main discussion section. We're well past the usual week long discussion period an RM is afforded. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 15:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor X2step. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 362 days ago on 12 October 2025)
Some1 (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by CommunityNotesContributor. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done again. Hopefully it sticks better this time. CNC (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 349 days ago on 25 October 2025)
I initially proposed this move, but have decided to withdraw after appropriate feedback was given. Red0ctober22 02:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by InfiniteNexus. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 371 days ago on 2 October 2025)
No one posted in 10 days. It would be nice if uninvolved editor could close as the topic was somewhat contested. 78.2.24.44 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing thank you for your time here. May I just ask whether it would be good to remove mentions of Croatia from the body of the article as well? This is a point of controversy for a long time. Just a year ago we had a broad discussion where it was concluded that Tesla had no connection to Croatia. The Rfc's question whether "Tesla's birthplace was a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire" has been overwhelmingly answered negative. Even majority of Croatian editors have voted NO to Tesla's connection to Croatia. Should article body mention Smiljan, with a hyperlink to the related page, and remove mentions of Croatia, which might confuse some readers to think that Tesla had connections to Croatia back in 19th century, for which we have a clear RfC consensus against that? If you see the article body, we have 2 more mentions of Croatia, in Early years section and as a caption to Tesla's home. 83.131.247.215 (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

As I said in the closing summary, I found no support in that discussion for removing any mentions of Croatia from the body of the article as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing It wasn't discussed. Yeah, it would need a separate discussion. I was just asking for your opinion as uninvoled editor, not like formal closure opinon on that specific discussion. But ok. We'll probably have other discussion in the future. One more thing, can you implement the consensus or should I place an edit request on the talk page? 83.131.247.215 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I could do so, but it would probably be better to wait a day or two. It's sometimes helpful to let people see the closing summary before they see the change to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Some people are very mistrusting of IPs on that page due to bad experiences with socks from before, so it's better I don't have anything to do with the edit itself, the same way as I didn't participate in the discussion. 83.131.132.167 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 342 days ago on 1 November 2025)
Improper RFCBEFORE. No need for this to stay up. NotJamestack (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done this doesn't appear to be the sentiment in the discussion. CNC (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor There now seems to be larger sentiment in the discussion. NotJamestack (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support CNC's decision above. Option remains to come back to this page on a later date to reopen a closure request. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 355 days ago on 19 October 2025)
Discussion appears to have settled on a move, one objection was raised at the start, but it looks to be a bit of a moot point (point is that the & is only used in signage and documentation for brevity, consensus appears to be that it is not the case) Coleisforeditor (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Abhiimanyu7. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 343 days ago on 30 October 2025)
There is already extensive comment on the proposal to move the page to Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (19:14, 30 October 2025) with an obvious consensus on favour. Before this snowballs can an uninvolved editor close the discussion today, even if under 24 hours? Billsmith60 (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: this discussion was closed yesterday after only a few hours and after some edit warring over the close was returned to open. The page has also been discussed at ANI and a move was rejected at RMTR. Per WP:RMEC, this shouldn't be closed "before this snowballs", but only if snowball applies, which is questionable (there's certainly consensus and it'd be an WP:UPHILLBATTLE to overturn but remains possible imo, within 6 days at least). Personally I think best to wait another day at minimum until the discussion dies down and consensus is stronger. Per the previous controversy over closing, any non-admin close would be (without fail) a WP:BADNAC CNC (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The volume of support for the page move is almost overwhelming now and an admin. or page mover should take a look very soon Billsmith60 (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Andy Mabbett. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Would need an administrator to close, due to move protection. The RfC has many pages of comments, but a consensus appears to have crystalised, if one accepts that earlier objections have become outdated. This is a highly visibile issue, and that this RfC being ongoing means that there is more confusion than is neccessary on whether other articles should be re-worded. I thought it would be a good idea to have an uninvolved admin weigh in on whether WP:SNOW would apply here (discussion ongoing for ~2 days but it seems to be a foregone conclusion that the name of the subject has changed going on reliable sources). Quantum Burrito (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Have restored the previous archive request for context here. CNC (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by DrKay. CNC (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 378 days ago on 26 September 2025)

I think that this will benefit from a clear closing summary. The question is whether the editor has permission to exceed the ordinary acceptable rate of article creation (25 to 50 per WP:MASSCREATE).

Please be concrete, specific, and unmistakble about both the permitted rate and whether there are any additional requirements, so that there can't be any drama over differing interpretations later. For example, for the rate, if consensus for a higher limit is not found, then say something like "is not allowed to create more than 50 articles per day", and if it is found, then something like "is allowed to create more than 50 articles per day" or "up to n articles per week" or whatever the result it. And if there are additional requirements (e.g., to cite x sources, or to write at least y words), then please either say what they are or say that there are none. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 10:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 368 days ago on 5 October 2025)
A very busy discussion for the first day that's now become dormant for about a week. Some sort of administrative closure and resolution seems appropriate, especially since the page in question is indef-protected. Left guide (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by toadspike. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 380 days ago on 24 September 2025)
RFC tag has been removed, ready to be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done This is my first closure in RSN, so if there are any questions regarding the closure please reach out to me. Gramix13 (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks good at face value, I had thought of closing that as NC as well. CNC (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 397 days ago on 7 September 2025)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Hilst. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 367 days ago on 7 October 2025)
Nearing 30 days; discussion has mostly died down. wound theology◈ 19:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Liz, just minutes later. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 369 days ago on 5 October 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Z E T A. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 385 days ago on 19 September 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Relisted. Left guide (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed as disambiguate and move. Left guide (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 444 days ago on 22 July 2025)
Discussion stalled. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed as not merged. Left guide (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 371 days ago on 3 October 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 14:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 713 days ago on 26 October 2024)
RfC expired almost a year ago. It's continued to attract some comments and preference votes without ever being closed. --Belbury (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 446 days ago on 20 July 2025)
30 days had passed since last !vote. Closed by original nominator. The dissenting voter then merged them anyway. Merge was undone but user threatened AN if OP did not re-open the discussion. Do not see this going anywhere by being opened longer and it has now become contentious.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41 (Listings on this page are supposed to be neutral.) As I've explained there, no one was ever threatened. The standard procedure for closure reviews of mergers is to go to AN. I was stating my intention to follow the standard closure review process, given that the closer was evidently WP:INVOLVED. Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to learn how the closure review process works. FaviFake (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to learn how the closure review process works, very aware how it works. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't have a problem with me transparently signaling my intention to follow it :) FaviFake (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Soni (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 387 days ago on 17 September 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 20:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed as delete by BDD. Left guide (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 480 days ago on 16 June 2025)
Proposed since June 2025. FaviFake (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done CNC (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 370 days ago on 4 October 2025)
I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editor could close this RfC once thirty days have passed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

This RfC is ready for closure. I would appreciate assistance in this matter. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 564 days ago on 23 March 2025)
Inactive for 7 months. FaviFake (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Klbrain. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 369 days ago on 5 October 2025)
The 7 days have passed (ping on reply). FaviFake (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I have closed this as consensus for a merge.

Courtesy ping: FaviFake

Gramix13 (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks! FaviFake (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 374 days ago on 30 September 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 14:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor BD2412. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 366 days ago on 7 October 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 14:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Warm Regards, Abhiimanyu7 talk  10:06, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 354 days ago on 20 October 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 14:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Warm Regards, Abhiimanyu7 talk  10:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 344 days ago on 29 October 2025)
– Clear consensus towards using the word "genocide" over the word "massacres". Consensus seems to be "Masalit Genocide". Although further discussion may be needed regarding the possibility of expanding the article to "Second Darfur Genocide" or creating a separate page, consensus seems to be fine with "Masalit Genocide". Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Glasspalace. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 07:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 389 days ago on 15 September 2025)
Since the RfC tag was removed on October 15 and the discussion has died down, would any uninvolved experienced editor assess the consensus and close this? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 07:17, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 362 days ago on 12 October 2025)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Relisted. Left guide (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 365 days ago on 9 October 2025)
This discussion regarding imposing CTOPs has been archived and needs closing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Toadspike [Talk] 17:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 498 days ago on 29 May 2025)
The RFC tag has been removed. I'm sorry for whoever has to do this, but it's better to get this over with. Sohom (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• If I was going to close this by myself, my one-paragraph version would say:

The en.wiki community knows that Wikipedia's licencing terms permit third parties to develop AI tools based on Wikipedia. Third parties can and will develop tools that, for example, summarize Wikipedia articles, and the community has no choice but to accept this. But the community is wary both of AI's tendency to hallucinate and its tendency to reuse without attribution. Some community members are also concerned about AI's climate change implications. To the extent that the community can assert control over any AI apps that run on en.wiki content, we assert that control. We ask for the chance to test and challenge all AI tools before they're deployed, and to the extent that this is feasible, many members of the community would prefer to be consulted about important AI tools while they're still in development. We ask that where a novel tool is enabled, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out, until fully tested and approved by us and other stakeholders. We insist that where a new AI-based tool is deployed, some way of opting out must exist.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I've already got one close review open against me, so I think I won't be quite that bold. But if other experienced closers concur with me, then I might co-sign a close.—S Marshall T/C 15:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Since we're sharing ideas, I guess, I gave it a good read and here's my try (but again, I'm not an experienced closer nor admin so take with a grain of salt).

At present, AI is integrated into the English Wikipedia in the context of antivandalism and content translation, with varying degrees of success. While some community members support cautious experimentation with certain AI features by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), we ask that the WMF keep the community updated to the extent that they are able to. Furthermore, the English Wikipedia community rejects any attempts by the WMF to deploy new uses of AI technology on the English Wikipedia without community consensus and approval.

GoldRomean (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta, would it make sense to remove this closure request? The discussion seems to be archived (if not closed). The discussion doesn't seem to be well suited for an RfC-style closure in my opinion. (cc @Tazmin) Dw31415 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, in hindsight I now disagree with myself (from the past) that this should be closed as a RFC. I think there has been a fair bit of talks at the WMF about this RFC and the followup PTAC recommendations. I'm reasonable confident that the P&T department have got the message, for one they are not considering Simple Summaries (Edit Check (and it's bogeyman brother Tone Check) is still under consideration under a much much reduced and more community-focused scope). For what it's worth, I think the RFC achieved it's purpose in pressuring the WMF on specific P&T areas and probably does not need a typical closure. Thoughts, @Tamzin? Sohom (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Withdrawn. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 463 days ago on 3 July 2025)
Clear outcome and no discussion since August. I would attempt to close this one myself, but it looks like it's missing the rfc tag and I'm not sure if that means it needs to be added before closing... I could be misunderstanding something. I would appreciate someone more experienced checking it out. Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The RfC tag expired after 30 days per WP:RFCEND btw. CNC (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done​ — Newslinger talk 21:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 390 days ago on 14 September 2025)
Would someone please close this relatively straightforward RfC - thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 13:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 360 days ago on 14 October 2025)
Only 22 days run on this, but aside from a posting today, there has been nothing since 19 October and potentially a clear consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Endorse closure. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I've read this discussion and the associated AN/I, and this is a massive waste of valuable volunteer time. Anyone including an involved user can close this under point 4 of WP:RFCEND. Experienced uninvolved closers are urgently needed elsewhere.—S Marshall T/C 18:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done by AlalchE.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 356 days ago on 18 October 2025)
Given how the edit war resulted in a full protection, I feel it is better for more experienced editors to summarize and close the discussion. NasssaNser 09:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@S Marshall:, should this be marked as  Done Dw31415 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Remember to change the {{initiated}} template's parameter to done=yes when you add a {{done}}, or you'll confuse the bot, which makes work for Redrose64.—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 353 days ago on 20 October 2025)

Last response is 15 days old. Joe vom Titan (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 14:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 345 days ago on 29 October 2025)
No comments for 10 days now. The OP is a newcomer, and I think a formal closing statement will be helpful in accepting the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 341 days ago on 2 November 2025)
!votes died down, result is clear but the topic is contentious. CNC (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

• I've asked for more rigour on a couple of points. Doesn't look like a completely clear result to me quite yet.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

   Done.—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 331 days ago on 12 November 2025)
This appears to be a WP:SNOW. Perhaps best for an admin to close given how divisive this stuff is. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Endorsed (uninvoled) I haven't got the time to read enough of the background to adequately summarise the dispute that led to this RfC (in order to close it in my preferred style), but very much agree with WP:SNOW here. (Non-administrator comment) CNC (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

(involved, RfC initiator) I agree that a clear consensus for Option A (status quo) is emerging, but since the topic is contentious and the sourcing is mixed and conflicting, I believe there would be no harm in letting the RfC run a few days more to see whether uninvolved editors jump in with new arguments or sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Emerging? It's already arrived. This is a clear cut "SNOW & DROPTHESTICK" close and your comment here is a mere reminder of that. Editor time is our most valuable resource. CNC (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It's only three days old and a good faith user wants it to run, so I personally wouldn't want to close it immediately. Let it run a few more days.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done. It's run an extra couple of days, and there's only one close available. I think it's less disruptive to close it than to let it run any further.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 376 days ago on 28 September 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 363 days ago on 11 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Pppery (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 360 days ago on 14 October 2025)
again, while consensus is clear, I can't use xfdcloser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreocooke (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

comment: there was no activity for over 2 weeks since closure was requested, but there now has been activity since about yesterday Oreocooke (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

(also please note that while i will voluntarily not close any discussions for a very long time as determined by the incident report, i can still request closures) Oreocooke (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Pppery (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Completed - (Initiated 966 days ago on 15 February 2024)
2 years should be enough. FaviFake (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done @FaviFake: Dr vulpes [[User talk:Dr_vulpes|

Talk:Panitya, Victoria#Requested move 27 October 2025

Completed - (Initiated 347 days ago on 27 October 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 02:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done closed by @Bunnypranav. TarnishedPath^talk 23:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Shepherds Flat, Victoria#Requested move 7 November 2025

Completed - (Initiated 336 days ago on 7 November 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 02:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done closed by @Bunnypranav. TarnishedPath^talk 23:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza genocide#"Consensus there is genocide" in lead

Completed - (Initiated 364 days ago on 10 October 2025)

Time for this discussion to be closed—no recent comments, lots of contributions made, and the atmosphere/focus of the talk page has shifted. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 22

Completed - (Initiated 352 days ago on 22 October 2025)
Another DRV overdue for closure. Left guide (talk) 08:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by Toadspike. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:A_picture_of_you#Shortcuts_at_the_top_of_the_page

Completed - (Initiated 342 days ago on 1 November 2025)
Minor thing, but editors disagree. No comments for 3 days, closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Doing... -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed @Gråbergs Gråa Sång -- Lenny Marks (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh#RfC on lede wording

Completed - (Initiated 446 days ago on 19 July 2025)
No one has contributed to this for about two months and Mztourist says he will only accept the change if it is supported by an RfC. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Doing... Dw31415 (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. FYI@Daniel Case and Mztourist:Dw31415 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Dw31415 (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

My closure did not help move things forward. There is discussion following the closure and at DfD Phnom Phen. Advice there was to reopen. The question has spilled over to Fall of Saigon. Guidance from an experienced closer would be very welcome. Dw31415 (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted my closure. @Daniel Case, you may want to consider withdrawing the closure request now that the closure as sparked more interest. Dw31415 (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, per above, I withdraw this request for closure. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn What should Daniel do with the template? I think we mark as done, yes, so I'll do that. Dw31415 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Zizians#RFC: Zizians and transgender identity

Completed - (Initiated 357 days ago on 17 October 2025)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zizians#RFC:_Zizians_and_transgender_identity Stale for a while and consensus is pretty clear ~2025-32773-62 (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Friendly bump. This has been open for a month and I've already had to fend off Legobot trying to remove it. I'd close it myself, but as the initiator I should let someone else do the honors. Asamboi (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Closed yesterday by S Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 10

Completed - (Initiated 363 days ago on 10 October 2025)
DRV overdue for closure. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Closed by Toadspike on the 18th. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis (band)#RfC: Lead image proposal

Completed - (Initiated 352 days ago on 22 October 2025)
There has been a slow trickle of views into this RfC; probably enough to assess consensus, but as I have participated in the RfC, I'd rather somebody other than me closed it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done LightlySeared (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC) 19:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Writing articles with large language models#RfC

Completed - (Initiated 349 days ago on 25 October 2025)
This RfC, which proposes creating a new guideline, is ready to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles

Completed - (Initiated 349 days ago on 25 October 2025)
Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor Rusalkii. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tendon of Todaro#Feedback from New Page Review process

Completed - (Initiated 522 days ago on 5 May 2025)
Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor FaviFake. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Mar-a-Lago face#Distinction from Republican makeup

Completed - (Initiated 377 days ago on 27 September 2025)
FaviFake (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Adams Estate, Victoria#Requested move 27 October 2025

Completed - (Initiated 347 days ago on 27 October 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 02:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tambo Crossing, Victoria#Requested move 3 November 2025

Completed - (Initiated 340 days ago on 3 November 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 02:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by @Jeffrey34555. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jeruk, Victoria#Requested move 3 November 2025

Completed - (Initiated 340 days ago on 3 November 2025)
TarnishedPath^talk 02:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Business Insider after switching to Artificial Intelligence

Completed - (Initiated 343 days ago on 31 October 2025)
No comment since the 22nd, and RFC tag has been removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Closed by S Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Salt Lake City#RfC on the inclusion of newly adopted flags in the infobox

Completed - (Initiated 409 days ago on 26 August 2025)
Discussion has gone stale, the RFC tag has been removed, and I'm involved. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Done! -- Beland (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:William_Penn#RFC_on_Infobox_image

Completed - (Initiated 408 days ago on 27 August 2025)
No new additions for over a month, no clear cut consensus. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 2:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

GrandDuchyConti this is done. Nemov (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: New GA quick fail criterion for AI

Completed - (Initiated 347 days ago on 26 October 2025)
I would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor could close this RfC after thirty days have passed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 11:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done by S Marshall. LightlySeared (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2025

Completed - (Initiated 490 days ago on 6 June 2025)

Too much ado about nothing. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

probably {{done}} by someone else by now, as it says it is answered and there has been no activity since 25 October Oreocooke (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably is not actually. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The request was unclear, so I closed the section. -- Beland (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#Should_IAR_be_overturned?

Completed - (Initiated 352 days ago on 22 October 2025)
268 comments, 103 people in discussion, discussion/!voting has mostly died out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Second the motion to close. Editors are now sniping at each other in disagreements about process. The debate on the actual question seems to have finished. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

To the closer: Please check the later IP's in this one, there seems several similar 2, 3 edit IPs whose short edit history reflect each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed! -- Beland (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 492#RFC:_Reliability_of_Pirate_Wires

Completed - (Initiated 394 days ago on 10 September 2025)
Slowing down... also its close to thirty days. good luck to whoever closes, needs someone with experience to try their hand at this User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The RFC tag has now been removed, and there's only been one new comment in the last week and a half. The discussion potentially overlaps with ARBPIA and AP2, so an experienced closer would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This has now been archived to archive 492, please restore to the main page if you close it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

In progress. -- Beland (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Lee Kuan Yew#RfC (authoritarian in the lead)

Completed - (Initiated 368 days ago on 6 October 2025)
Discussion within the RFC has died down, with the last comment posted 17 days ago. Personally I find the discussion to be very messy so I don't dare to close this myself. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Military–industrial_complex#RfC_two_versions_of_a_paragraph

Completed - (Initiated 360 days ago on 13 October 2025)
Discussion ended a week ago. Uhoj (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done! -- Beland (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Walsh (political commentator)#RFC: Characterization of political views

Completed - (Initiated 358 days ago on 16 October 2025)
!votes have quietened, WP:CT/AP. CNC (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RFC: Baltic states birth infoboxes

Completed - (Initiated 348 days ago on 26 October 2025)
: After over a month, it's time for closure. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done! -- Beland (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hasan Piker/Archive 4#RfC regarding the dog collar controversy

Completed - (Initiated 345 days ago on 29 October 2025)
Some1 (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Already closed by User:S Marshall. -- Beland (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Status of WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions

Completed - (Initiated 343 days ago on 31 October 2025)
This RfC is ready for closure. I would be much obliged if an uninvolved editor could assess consensus and close the discussion accordingly. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• That doesn't need an uninvolved editor. It's an obvious one, obvious enough to be closable by an involved editor.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done by RGloucester. CNC (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Scientology#RFC on framing of a sentence in article text

Completed - (Initiated 343 days ago on 31 October 2025)
Ripe for closure. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Closed by S Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Times Now

Completed - (Initiated 343 days ago on 31 October 2025)
Small discussion, but would benefit from a formal close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Limb #4 of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs applies, obvious enough that it doesn't need uninvolved closure.—S Marshall T/C 16:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  While I generally agree, this does seem to contradict WP:NACINV for non-admins per For the avoidance of doubt, editors should never close any discussion where they have !voted, or XfD discussions where they created or non-trivially contributed to the object under discussion (original emphasis). Given it's a well-cited essay, I'd personally be following that over the information page that references even an involved editor may summarize the discussion, given it's hang wavy type suggestion. Each to their own though, and there are enough admins about at least. CNC (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done CNC (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Increase the frequency of Today's Featured Lists

Completed - (Initiated 341 days ago on 2 November 2025)
Doesn't seem like a controversial discussion, but given that it impacts the Main Page, a clear close would probably be best. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#RfC:_Amending_the_guideline_text

Completed - (Initiated 334 days ago on 9 November 2025)
Should the RfC tag be refreshed, or should this discussion (or the specific proposal to abolish introductory articles) be closed? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Already closed by S Marshall. -- Beland (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

WT:NOT#RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT: Broad or specific.

Completed - (Initiated 333 days ago on 10 November 2025)
This has had no activity for over 48 hours and can be closed. I did request that an uninvolved administrator close this due to issues with the previous 'WP:DESTNOT' close, however any close by an experienced uninvolved editor is welcome. Another editor stated that they believed 7 days was long enough. An involved administrator recommended letting the RfC go to archive without a formal close. I am not opposed to either, however I believe a proper close would be the better option for this RfC. Thank you! 11WB (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur with the guidance to let the RfC go to archive. I commented more in the discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

✋ @11WB would still like a close so an RfC more likely to gain consensus can be opened. I think it would be appropriate for the requester to withdraw the question but I’d like a more experienced opinion on that. Dw31415 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Several options were given, and editors have given their opinions on more than one option. So it appears that the nom should not withdraw. The nom should probably await closure of the RfC. Thank you very much, editor Dw31415, for calling my attention to this on my talk page! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 01:26, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Doing... Dw31415 (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Dw31415 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Hamburger#Request_for_comment:Variations#Veggie_burgers_should_be_removed_from_the_article.

Completed - (Initiated 319 days ago on 23 November 2025)
: 10 comments, 8 people in discussion, no comments for 3 days. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done by @Beland Dw31415 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Allowing_use_of_AE_for_community_topicwide_restrictions

Completed - (Initiated 313 days ago on 29 November 2025)
I would appreciate consideration of whether early closure of this RfC is warranted. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Done by S Marshall LightlySeared (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19#HODL

Completed - (Initiated 453 days ago on 13 July 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Closed by Rusalkii. Left guide (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025 October 13#Category:Incubi_and_succubi

Completed - (Initiated 376 days ago on 28 September 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed and added to backlog at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual (which could use volunteer help.) -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_19#Category:Former_counties_of_Scotland

Completed - (Initiated 370 days ago on 3 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Closed! -- Beland (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_24#Category:Tichon_Hadash_high_school_alumni

Completed - (Initiated 368 days ago on 6 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Done! -- Beland (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Defunct/disused/former_railway_stations

Completed - (Initiated 364 days ago on 10 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion closed; lots of volunteer help needed for implementation. -- Beland (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_21#Category:Sporting events in Australia by state or territory

Completed - (Initiated 353 days ago on 21 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Done, but may need a followup discussion. -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_23#Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England

Completed - (Initiated 351 days ago on 23 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Determined consensus direction, but consulting participants on implementation details. -- Beland (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Done! -- Beland (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_23#Category:Scholars_and_instructors_of_spoken_Latin_or_spoken_Ancient_Greek

Completed - (Initiated 350 days ago on 23 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_25#Wikipedians_by_religion

Completed - (Initiated 349 days ago on 25 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Done! -- Beland (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_November_12#Category:Deaths_on_Mount_Everest

Completed - (Initiated 346 days ago on 28 October 2025)
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. -- Beland (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 9#Dum Dums

Completed - (Initiated 342 days ago on 1 November 2025)
Rusalkii (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)