Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

After reviewing the now rescinded close, this is the close I would offer. I’ll stop short of closing because I don’t want to receive any BADNAC accusations, but I would be willing to co-sign something similar to below.

Given the number of editors supporting the status quo, there is no consensus for a change in this discussion. Increasing the number of signatures required for recall is the change with the most support but its supporters are fewer than the supporters of the status quo. The analysis from the initial close follows.

Dw31415 (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There are 11 separate proposals on that page. Which one would you offer this for? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I would leave it at that and include Dr V’s analysis of the support for A-K. I think the criticism that the structure of the options does not lend itself to determining actionable consensus has merit. Further, focused discussion on the items with support may produce some consensus for change. Dw31415 (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey guys, it's me your boy here and I'm just saying about some ideas of multi-headed beasts from mythology that I found throught the internet and I'm really curious to find more informations on them. Which one of you could to tell anything about their names, lores and tale of 'em? JJMikey (talk)

@JJMikey: This is the wrong noticeboard for that question. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. BD2412 T 04:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Or the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. (Or start at Hydra (mythology), and see what links you can find to related subjects?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I've been trying to find some answers, but I'm really confused on how to scroll down faster to see more of these animations from newgrounds? ~2026-40153-5 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you're on the wrong noticeboard. This is a page for re-discussing past discussions about Wikipedia policy, and is about as meta as you can get. I think you're looking for something from a video game, maybe?, but you'll need to give a lot more context about what you want. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cremastra: Actually this is more of a page for discussion closers to get advice from other discussion closers on the closure of specific discussions, which is perhaps even more meta. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That's two lost newcomers in less than two days. Should we think about a WP:SEMI, so they'll have to go elsewhere? People don't expect software to allow them to do the 'wrong' thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's the same person, if you look at the contributions from the temp. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:16, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Special:GoToComment/c-Aaron Liu-20260126172200-Guideline status for WP:CLOSE. Not exactly a discussion for discussion, I realize, but I think it's of interest to us closers. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Note: A better link to this discussion is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Guideline status for WP:CLOSE. BD2412 T 18:57, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia was openned almost 90 days ago. I'm hoping there might be some collaboration to close it. I don't have much experience with RSN. What's the pragmatic difference between #1 (reliable) and #5 (reliable with caveats)? Many of the !votes are for 1 or 5, but I'm not clear on the practical distinction. If the outcome were #5, where would the caveats be documented? Would the outcome be a basis for deleting edits on biographical material? If there's not consensus for that should those concerns be still noted in the close?

Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:

1. The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
2. There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
3. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
4. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.
5. The source is: Generally reliable for sports-statistics data; Of unclear reliability for biographical data; and Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Dw31415 (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

1 means it's generally reliable for all purposes. 5 means it's generally reliable for sports-statistics data and "of unclear reliability" for biographical data. If you're not clear on what those distinctions mean practically, I don't think you should be closing this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Glancing through the discussion, I see that I fortuitously participated in the discussion and am therefore exempt from closing it. It's now at the top of Wikipedia:Closure requests#Requests for comment and will presumably be addressed in due course. As general advice, if anyone who is reading this wants to close it, I think the most workable theme might be what wasn't agreed to, rather than what was.

I think that discussion is a good example of how the four-option model for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not fit the community's needs for every source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I unarchived and updated the link Dw31415 (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You should've waited for the closer to do that. There's no reason to unarchive before someone is closing it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:38, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Is that your opinion, recent practice or community consensus? Dw31415 (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I see the 5 day archive setting so I see that is a factor. Dw31415 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This is pointless, as there is already a close request at WP:CR#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia, unarchiving won't close it any sooner and anyone who would close it would have unarchived it when they did (which is what I thought you had done). As it is it will be archived again in a few days. Restoring 100k of text ina discussion that is just waiting a close only negatively impacts the functioning of the noticeboard -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The RSN noticeboard is regularly overburdened, that's why the archiving is set to five days. Restoring this was a mistake, that will negatively impact other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Dw31415 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

P.s., would the Template:Archive now been an easy way to fix the unarchiving? Is there a reason you didn’t suggest undoing the edit? One of the things I love about WP is how easy it is to fix mistakes. Dw31415 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I !voted and I have a longstanding position against articles being sourced only to online databases in general and Olympedia in particular.
  I feel the closer of that discussion needs to take into account the following things:
  1. Someone's obfuscated the identity of the editor who asked the question. They're allowed to, rather frustratingly, but the closer always needs to establish who did that, when, and why. Also establish whether the question changed during the course of the debate, and if so when, why, and who changed it.
  2. The discussion includes matters that weren't explicitly part of the question. In particular there's a lot about whether Olympedia is an independent source, which in context might actually be about notability rather than reliability. In closing, be mindful that the community isn't constrained to only consider the RFC question. I think the distinction between options 1 and 5 is that option 1 has this online database as an unqualified suitable source for a BLP, and option 5 has it as a suitable source but not a suitable sole source.
  3. Be mindful of how many articles this RFC affects (it's thousands) and the long and political history of Lugnuts, Wikipedia's most prolific article starter ever, who is now sitebanned. Consider the circumstances in which Arbcom banned him.
  4. Consider the long and bitterly political history of sports notability guidelines.
  5. Back the hell away and let a panel of experienced sysops take the inevitable flak from closing this one. Where angels fear to tread, etc.—S Marshall T/C 07:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  On #1, it's usually easy enough to find those diffs. Usually, you can start with Legobot's edits (here; easily found through this tool) and click "Previous edit" a couple of times. I'm not sure it is that important, though. In theory, the fact that it was started by someone who holds a strong POV against this source shouldn't matter, and the specific motivation is described in the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to @Vanamonde93: for the close. I should have written down how I would have closed it because I think it was similar to this (but that’s easy to say in retrospect). I think I would have been more concise to say there was consensus for reliability on statistics but that the RfC was too muddled to discern a consensus on the question of biographies. That those wishing to make a change there should address that question specifically.

I hope I write that to learn what the communities expectations are here, although it’s never too great to be told to back the hell away even if it’s because I’m running with scissors. (Mixing my metaphors). Anyway, thanks for reading this and good night/good day to you. Dw31415 (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer not to have editors opine about how they would close a discussion. If the close ends up being close to what was suggested by the peanut gallery it might look like adapting the close of a likely involved editor or if it's far away from what was proposed it feels like a preemptive objection to the close and deviations should be explicitly justified. Other closers may have different opinions but for me it doesn't feel helpful at all and may risk biasing the closer. Trialpears (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to try closing an RfC, but since this is the first time I would be doing that, I wanted to run it by some other people first to see if I’m understanding the assignment correctly.

My proposed closure of Talk:Military–industrial complex#RfC pejorative:

Proper policy-based, good-faith arguments were made on all sides of this RfC, despite low participation and LLM interventions which were already collapsed and could be ignored in the writing of this summary.

There has been no opposition to option D while there was significant opposition to either B or A, while C had very little support. The use of the term “usually” in A was criticised and supporters of A agreed to use “often” instead.

This leads me to conclude a consensus exists for a modified version of D, which uses a milder qualifier of the frequency of use than “frequently”. It would then be “The phrase Military-Industrial Complex is often used to criticize…”, the support for which is greater than for any other option.

(Personal note: I generally use -ise, but in this summary, the quoted phrase, being a literal fragment meant for use in the article text, which uses American English, obviously needs to use -ize despite the summary including the phrase ‘use of “usually” in A was criticised’ as well.)

Slomo666 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this close (especially the part about dropping "frequently"), but I can't come up with something better either, so perhaps the best course of action is to try it and see what happens. Oftentimes such ContentiousTopics/AmeriPolitcs (which only applies to post-1992 ones, broadly construed)–related topics should be closed by an administrator, but since the discussion wasn't heated at all I'll ignore that rule.

I'd wait for one more editor to chime in before you follow my (potentially dangerous) advice, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I had not even considered this was within the American Politics Ctop. Slomo666 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion, and you might want to pick a different discussion anyway, since it's an WP:AP2 article. But whether you try to summarize this or not, you might want to consider the value of a "consensus against" statement, rather than a "consensus for" statement. Sometimes, ruling things out is as important as ruling them in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm looking to close the proposed merger: Talk:Yeison Jiménez#Merge proposal, which has been on the request closure page for about a month. This is my first time closing something where consensus isn't crystal clear so I wanted to ask for input on my proposed close:

The result of the discussion was merge.

Supporters of the merge cited WP:EVENTCRIT to argue that the event does not independently meet notability guidelines as an aviation accident. They argued that per WP:PAGEDECIDE the reader would be best served by merging the articles and that the notability for this event cannot be inherited from the notability of Jiménez.

Opponents of the merge argued that the death of Jiménez is in itself notable per WP:GNG and that WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is guaranteed by the forthcoming accident report. Furthermore, they argued that per PAGEDECIDE readers seeking information on Jiménez's death would be better served by a separate article. The argument that "merging is for non-notable events mentioned in passing" was not considered because it ignores important parts of WP:MERGEREASON. Just because an event, in this case a death, is notable, doesn't mean that it needs its own article. In this case readers are best served by keeping all of the information in one article.

There is general agreement among editors that:

• The death of Jiménez is notable.
• The crash, absent a notable person's death, would not be meet notability guidelines and that the aviation details of the crash are secondary in the notability of the event.
• There is agreement that if the page is kept independent of the main article it should be renamed "Death of Yeison Jiménez". However, proponents of the merge argued convincingly that the content of this page would be best placed in the proposed destination article and that a "Death of Yeison Jiménez" article would be inappropriate per PAGEDECIDE.

ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Works for me. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 16:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• It's the correct close, but the closing statement needs to explain more clearly why the "keep" side has it wrong.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback! I added some more explanation, hoping to post it tomorrow. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

If it was me, I think I'd also give more detail on why the argument from precedent fails, and why the IP addresses !voting get less weight than the experienced generalist editors. There's a good chance of at least one editor being very surprised about this close so expect some pushback.—S Marshall T/C 20:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)