Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 40
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
(Initiated 128 days ago on 27 January 2025) RfC has been open for a month. Please let me know if a formal closure is required here, as I think only one of the two conditions in Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Closing the discussion is satisfied. Malerisch (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Doing... Dw31415 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)- 🙋♂️ I’d appreciate a second opinion on my
draftclosure. If you have a minute, please take a look and comment on my talk. Dw31415 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC) - {{close}} by editor Dw31415. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Paine Ellsworth, there was some concern about whether my closure was proper. Would you be willing to take a quick look and comment on my talk page? I’m looking to add a second opinion that might help two involved editors assess where they should ask me to reopen or take to closure review. Dw31415 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to help! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Paine Ellsworth, there was some concern about whether my closure was proper. Would you be willing to take a quick look and comment on my talk page? I’m looking to add a second opinion that might help two involved editors assess where they should ask me to reopen or take to closure review. Dw31415 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 20 February 2025) Has been opened for at least two weeks now. Please also take into consideration this comment at the concurrent renaming discussion Talk:Department_of_Government_Efficiency#Centralized_RFC_and_straw_poll_for_article_names_on_forks (it's labelled an RfC in the section heading, but it's not actually an RfC). Some1 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 98 days ago on 26 February 2025) 3 people (including me), have a unanimous unopposed consensus that the page be renamed into "Genetic and Anthropology studies on Filipinos" The move request has been on for at least two weeks now and roughly about 11 days. Requesting a WP:SNOW closure. — Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 116 days ago on 8 February 2025) Discussion has run its course. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Dw31415 (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} Dw31415 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 114 days ago on 9 February 2025) Open for a roughly a month now. I think consensus is clear enough but it is not unanimous and I am too involved to close myself. Does not need an admin to make the close as no admin action is required regardless of outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 100 days ago on 23 February 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Cabayi at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 17#Topic ban appeal archived. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 118 days ago on 5 February 2025) Was closed a week early, then underwent closure review. Someone reopened it up. Maybe wait another week or so for full month before closing again? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Closure happens when discussion fizzles out or doesn't go anywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- 🙋♂️The RfC tag was not replaced in reverting the close. Should it be? (cc: @Aaron Liu) Dw31415 (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes (99.99% sure). TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, it would've already expired; RfC tags expire after 30 days of being placed.
Edit: Actually you could if you want since there aren't many firm rules and there was a week to go. Just remember to preserve the rfcid parameter. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC) - I added back the deleted tag (with same id). I also collapsed the previous close for readability. Dw31415 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{DONE}} Chetsford (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 18 February 2025) Might need an uninvolved closer, especially as the discussion has slowed down a little bit. --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 311 days ago on 28 July 2024) – Merge proposal initiated by me, consensus has formed but not unanimous so I cannot close myself. No comments since 29 November 2024. U-Mos (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 88 days ago on 8 March 2025)The discussion seems to have stabilized, with a clear majority in favour of moving the article. --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Fahrenheit666: please note that closure requests are supposed to be neutral. Please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 20 March 2025) Requesting a procedural close of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather § Requested move 20 March 2025 as conflicting with Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 § Requested move 20 March 2025. A WP:RMPM can only be placed on "On one of the talk pages". Also, the nominator has now asked to withdraw. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} Partly by the conflicting entry being removed. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 173 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- {{not done}}: well past the point of staleness now, I'm afraid. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 256 days ago on 21 September 2024) Malformed RFC, but regardless, it's been many months since it was started without a proper closure. Please note the third "status quo" option and the intent of !voters in choosing between the choices presented vs. the "status quo". —Locke Cole • t • c 15:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 131 days ago on 24 January 2025) RfC tag was removed recently. Needs review soon before the bot archives the discussion. --George Ho (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- An experienced editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies should close this one. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 13:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't mind two or more participants doing a collaborative closure. I bet others assume that one editor suffices. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I will support a collaborative closure if someone takes the lead in drafting the closing statement. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't mind two or more participants doing a collaborative closure. I bet others assume that one editor suffices. George Ho (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Will go into this as if I am closing solo. I hope Chetsford you will indulge me taking up your offer and allow me to seek advisement if I feel the need to do so, given your experience, presuming your opinion hasn't changed since the 2nd. —Sirdog (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sure thing, just ping me whenever (or if) you want me to second your close rationale. Chetsford (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)\
- {{Done}} —Sirdog (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 108 days ago on 16 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Dw31415 (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} Dw31415 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 107 days ago on 16 February 2025) The discussion has died down. Just in case, I'm requesting closure by uninvolved editor. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to wait the last week out, honestly. Three participants is not really enough to establish consensus in any direction for an RfC with potentially broad effect like this, and while no one else has commented in a while, and it will probably close with no consensus per the above, might as well give the chance to make this a worthwhile RfC. Fieari (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} —Sirdog (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 89 days ago on 7 March 2025) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 112 days ago on 12 February 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Thryduulf. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 204 days ago on 12 November 2024) after 5 months can someone please resist or close this. no new comments since January 29 2025. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Consensus to include. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 123 days ago on 1 February 2025) Relisting this because an editor requested that an Admin close the discussion. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- {{tick}} Closed by Beland. – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 05:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 150 days ago on 4 January 2025) Cinderella157 (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 21 February 2025)
Stale since Feb 27, with much of the attention having shifted to a broader related WikiProject meta-discussion at WT:NBA#Discussion on allowing "greatest" in the lead of all NBA players. Seems like an example of WP:RFC#Reasons and ways to end RfCs point 3: The dispute may be moved to another dispute resolution forum.
The project discussion itself may merit its own RfC at some point, but it seems inappropriate to have two related RfCs running in parallel in different venues. Left guide (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 100 days ago on 24 February 2025) Six for (including me), and one against – a clear consensus has formed that these articles cover the same league and thus should be merged. Requesting a WP:SNOW closure. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
{{Done}} - Lenny Marks (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 96 days ago on 28 February 2025) – Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 176 days ago on 10 December 2024) Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have mediated enough Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes to know that there may be blood, so the closure should probably be done by someone with a mop. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 167 days ago on 19 December 2024) Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have mediated enough Armenia-Azerbaijan disputes to know that there may be blood, so the closure should probably be done by someone with a mop. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. FOARP (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 120 days ago on 4 February 2025) There have been discussions over which political position or political positions to use in the infobox. Discussion hasn't been active for 13 days now, so it seems about the right time to close the discussion and write up a conclusion. Helper201 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, though it seems the result had already been implemented... Toadspike [Talk] 22:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 119 days ago on 5 February 2025) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote was eight days ago, prior vote was 22 days ago. DonIago (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} (ping Doniago) Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 99 days ago on 25 February 2025) This discussion is winding down and will soon need to be closed. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is {{done}} by LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs). Thanks - Nemov (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 159 days ago on 27 December 2024) Would've tackled closing this one myself, but there's at least a couple of these which probably will get a delete result, and I'm not an admin. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion was relisted for technical reasons (the RFD page was too large). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Thryduulf. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 109 days ago on 15 February 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Beland. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 108 days ago on 16 February 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Beland. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 21 February 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Beland. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 655 days ago on 19 August 2023) Would an admin or experienced editor take a stab at this discussion and close it? The discussion has been going on for almost two years and I hope that the image issue is resolved in the years to come. Interstellarity (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 115 days ago on 9 February 2025) If anyone wants to do any easy close, they don't get much easier than this. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
bazinga
I'm thinking about something I read once in projectspace saying something along the lines of "when the outcome is obvious, closure is neither needed nor advisable" though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)- I'm not sure I'm familiar with that. It sounds like a koan. Chetsford (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- See yellow cue ball #1 near the top of this project page, as well as in this page's edit notice. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Chetsford is wise to avoid a self-close because there is a dissenting argument that should to be considered. Dw31415 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm familiar with that. It sounds like a koan. Chetsford (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 83 days ago on 13 March 2025) No new comments since March 24. Interstellarity (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 days ago on 25 March 2025) Shankargb (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 126 days ago on 29 January 2025) Relisting this following discussion at ANI. Looks like it might be a controversial close either way so perhaps best an Administrator closes it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 23:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 94 days ago on 2 March 2025) No new comments since the 7th of March. TarnishedPathtalk 10:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Trying to do more closes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 152 days ago on 3 January 2025) –Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 19 March 2025) 27 comments, 6 people in discussion, no comments for 6 days. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. I don't see a discussion that requires closing here. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 71 days ago on 25 March 2025) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}: Closed by @FOARP. TarnishedPathtalk 10:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 100 days ago on 24 February 2025), a move discussion on whether this should be moved to a title including the word "war" that has been open since the third anniversary of the outbreak of the war. !voting has slowed to a crawl. FOARP (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 102 days ago on 22 February 2025) Legobot has removed the RFC tag and discussion has slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 175 days ago on 11 December 2024) I am involved, and cannot close this myself. Has been relisted five times, most recently on March 22nd. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 74 days ago on 22 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 27 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 88 days ago on 8 March 2025) RFC template expired. Can someone close? Thanks. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 104 days ago on 20 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor FOARP. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 94 days ago on 2 March 2025) I think there is WP:rough consensus now, but I'm involved. Paradoctor (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Anachronist. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 21 February 2025) JensonSL (SilverLocust) 11:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'd rather let this keep running. While it looked early on like it was snowballing in favor of C, there's now a fair amount of variety in the newer votes. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- No new (!)votes in three and a half days. Contrast with the 90 in the first 24 hours. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 00:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly ready to close Leijurv (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- No new (!)votes in three and a half days. Contrast with the 90 in the first 24 hours. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 00:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
- See also the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections#Ready to Close?. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to closure (disclosure: I voted in it) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Discussion practically slowed to a halt. I think it's ready for closure. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 12:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Should an administrator close this? I’m guessing yes, but asking for all non-admins. I wouldn’t attempt it because it looks like a 90/10 type of result, but I’m not familiar enough with the policies or principles that minority is raising. Dw31415 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite a big change, so I think an admin (or at least someone very experienced at closing) should take this on. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Will note that my first ever closure of anything (IIRC, at worst it was my 3rd ever) was the WP:AELECT proposal itself. I want to encourage any interested and experienced editor who perhaps doesn't have much (or any) close history and is lurking to give it a shot if they feel they possess sufficient reading comprehension skills and knowledge of policy. WP:BOLD doesn't just apply to editing articles, and so long as it's done in good faith and you can demonstrate you gave the discussion a thorough read, it's unlikely anything catastrophic will happen. We can always use more closers given the amount of work they take to do. Worst case is being asked to self-revert. Worse than that is likely due to forces unrelated to the closer or because the closer grossly misinterpreted their competency in the aforementioned skills. —Sirdog (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. If you made a mistake, the community will just vote to indef TBAN you from closing. No big deal. There are plenty of other ways to contribute to Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 06:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well @Sirdog, that didn’t go well, but a good learning experience for me. Dw31415 (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
{{done}}- 🙋♂️I’ve got some ideas on how to close after reflecting on my previous mistakes. If you’re a 10k+ editor (more experienced is even better) and would like to collaborate to close, please let me know. I’m thinking it will be difficult to find an uninvolved administrator and there’s some benefit to a naive closure. Please ping me to your talk page if interested. Dw31415 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Don't worry yourselves. There are well over 300 current and active admins (and almost all the bureaucrats) who didn't make an assertion in the process, so literally hundreds of suitable and trusted admin closers. This is not a discussion anyone should be encouraged to close; Sirdog's bold confidence did not work out well for Dw31415's laborious good faith effort. This was always going to be an RfC which ran the full thirty days. BTW, this board is not generally for discussing editors' various experience with closes, but about directly responding to listed close requests. The undue chatter in this listing ignores that those disagreeing with this close will likely include admins well-prepared to defend their varying view. I'll gently advise the folks in this discussion to pipe down, and allow a closer broadly trusted by the community to self-select. BusterD (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- The ITN criteria amendments RfC, which was of a similar scale, took nearly 4 months and an AN thread for closers to self-select. Is it time for an AN nag for this RfC as well? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe. Let's let it run for another day or so, and if it's not closed or nothing new comes from it, then let's make an AN thread. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- There isn't anything happening (minus a single C vote), let's nag em'. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 16:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- The ITN criteria amendments RfC, which was of a similar scale, took nearly 4 months and an AN thread for closers to self-select. Is it time for an AN nag for this RfC as well? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Don't worry yourselves. There are well over 300 current and active admins (and almost all the bureaucrats) who didn't make an assertion in the process, so literally hundreds of suitable and trusted admin closers. This is not a discussion anyone should be encouraged to close; Sirdog's bold confidence did not work out well for Dw31415's laborious good faith effort. This was always going to be an RfC which ran the full thirty days. BTW, this board is not generally for discussing editors' various experience with closes, but about directly responding to listed close requests. The undue chatter in this listing ignores that those disagreeing with this close will likely include admins well-prepared to defend their varying view. I'll gently advise the folks in this discussion to pipe down, and allow a closer broadly trusted by the community to self-select. BusterD (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- This one needs closure. At this point nothing productive is happening on the page, but it's an important discussion and I urge an uninvolved admin to take action sooner rather than later. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 78 days ago on 18 March 2025) Consensus appears pretty clear to not merge, but still requesting non-involved/admin assessment and closure. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
- @MarioProtIV: I've closed the discussion as [Not moved]. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Aviationwikiflight. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 11 April 2025) It has been suggested its premature. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've fixed the RFC links, not sure why Talk:Turkey was linked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} This was closed by Alalch E.. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 30 January 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 00:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 31 March 2025) I have proposed here to rename the page to a more commonly used name The discussion has emained stale for over a week now. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 239 days ago on 8 October 2024) reopened RfC, has been stale now for almost 2 weeks. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'll close it, but I don't think this is going to make anyone happy. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 120 days ago on 4 February 2025) This was archived by the bot, but I think it needs formal closure. JonJ937 (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm intrigued. Why does it need closing? The consensus is very clear indeed, and there are good reasons why we don't normally close discussions that have been archived.—S Marshall T/C 23:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- That wasn't an RFC so it shouldn't even be listed here Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 115 days ago on 9 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ErnestKrause. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 107 days ago on 17 February 2025)
- Closure seems fairly obvious, but this area has been contentious in the past, so formal closure would be appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}, headbomb :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 95 days ago on 28 February 2025) Some1 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
- This one was quite active for 3 months, but as of yesterday it's gone quiet. Might be time to close? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, I think it's been open for quite awhile at this point. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 115 days ago on 9 February 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 00:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 110 days ago on 14 February 2025) No comments in over 30 days and Legobot has removed the {{rfc}} tag. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by S Marshall :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 74 days ago on 22 March 2025) It's been a week since the last comment, and the result appears clear. However a involved close is likely to generate commentary, so a close by someone un-involved is requested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 9 April 2025) This has gone on for a while now. TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}, closed by @Tamzin. TarnishedPathtalk 23:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 79 days ago on 16 March 2025) one !vote in the last week; tag expires tomorrow. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by AntiCompositeNumber :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} (to tag the categories). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} (to tag the categories). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 74 days ago on 22 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Explicit. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 12 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 20 April 2025) Though this RFC has only been going for 2 days, consensus appears to be abundantly clear to me. Can we get a independent close on this please, as this is a contentious topic. TarnishedPathtalk 22:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} that was easy Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 27 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 129 days ago on 26 January 2025) It's been open for a month, and the RfC tag was removed on 25 February. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed back on the 17th by S Marshall[1]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 27 March 2025) I'd previously closed this and then reopened it after a request on my talk. Last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 23:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 days ago on 7 February 2025) Discussion has slowed. Last !vote was two days ago and before that was 19th of February. TarnishedPathtalk 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 113 days ago on 11 February 2025) JJPMaster (she/they) 01:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ModernDayTrilobite. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 04:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 111 days ago on 13 February 2025) There haven't been any new votes in about 5 days and the RfC tag has expired. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 00:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by S Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 1 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by LaundryPizza03. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 1 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 158 days ago on 28 December 2024) - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} TurboSuperA+ (☏) 11:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}. The initial close was reverted but this request was never unarchived. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 74 days ago on 22 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 1 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 20 March 2025) As the OP of this one I made the decision to withdrawl given a broader RfC was opened on the date ranges and basically rendered this specific move discussion moot. Requesting a closure with the discussion withdrawn here. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 107 days ago on 17 February 2025) This was listed here, closed, taken to AN as a bad NAC and re-opened by the closernoticeboard&oldid=1278648147#Improper WP:NAC at FTN, and automatically archived from this boardrequests/Archive 39#WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities. Aaron Liu originally listed it here with the comment "Fizzled out, round in circles, consensus seems clear" which I find sums it up well apart from "consensus seems clear" downplays just how overwhelmingly clear it is. Reposting it as it still needs closure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm considering closing this, but don't want to blunder into an area I haven't interacted with before. Could somebody please explain what the function of the fringe theories noticeboard is, and what impact an unqualified "yes" consensus could be expected to have? I'm trying to wrap my head around the couple of procedural opposes. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think after the previous closure I'd prefer trying to get an admin in, but: WP:FTN is mainly for editors to point out when someone is trying to make edits pushing "fringe theories", i.e. theories that are clearly outside the mainstream. Or at least that's what easily 90% of topics are about.
- The point of a "yes" consensus here is to have something to point to when someone tries to make edits pushing certain types of anti-trans misinformation, such as that trans identity is a mental illness.
- There's a bunch of active RFCs on similar topics on that noticeboard right now because a) someone tried to revisit the status of a certain organization (SEGM) as widely considered WP:FRINGE and b) during that discussion someone pointed out that what it means for an organization to be WP:FRINGE wasn't well defined and maybe it would be better to try to nail down what actual theories were WP:FRINGE instead. Loki (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- TL;DR: it means it is a fringe theory covered by the Wikipedia:Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'll second that I think it's better for an admin to close, but also want to note that wrt
an area I haven't interacted with before
: you did perform an overturned NAC on the Telegraph on trans topics RFC, where the Telegraph's pathologization of trans people was heavily discussed.talk:Compassionate727#Telegraph RFC Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)- By "area" I think he meant the Fringe theories policy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I believe one of the main disputes underlying this discussion is what the impact of an unqualified "yes" consensus should be. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- Asked AN to hopefully move this along. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}, by User:Sandstein. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 98 days ago on 26 February 2025) Sat around long enough and no new activity in a while. PackMecEng (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 93 days ago on 3 March 2025) Rusalkii (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 18 February 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 00:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Looks like this closure was {{Done}} by User:RetroCosmos earlier today. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 81 days ago on 15 March 2025) RFC tag has been removed and no new comments in the last two weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Now archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 475#RFC: RoutesOnline.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I restored it from archive, pinned it, and added a note about this request. I don't think discussions are supposed to be closed on an archive page, and I'm just saving the heroic closer some time. To avoid this situation, I suggest pinning the discussion (using
{{subst:pin section}}) when submitting a request here. The "note about this request" is also helpful. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)- There's no need to restore it, let alone pin it, if it's closed the closer can restore it or simply notify the noticeboard of the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- I restored it from archive, pinned it, and added a note about this request. I don't think discussions are supposed to be closed on an archive page, and I'm just saving the heroic closer some time. To avoid this situation, I suggest pinning the discussion (using
(Initiated 119 days ago on 5 February 2025) TarnishedPathtalk 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- (Initiated 43 days ago on 22 April 2025) As I'm thoroughly involved here, if somebody can close this unanimous TBAN discussion at ANI, it would be appreciated. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Industrial Insect, thank you. The Bushranger One ping only 21:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 83 days ago on 13 March 2025) RFC tag has expired an no comments for 9 days. TarnishedPathtalk 09:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: the discussion is now archived, but a proper closure is still needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I restored it from archive, pinned it, and added a note about this request. I don't think discussions are supposed to be closed on an archive page, and I'm just saving the heroic closer some time. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Toadspike [Talk] 16:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 days ago on 4 April 2025) Latest comment 4 days ago, 34 comments, 11 people in discussion. Closure would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
{{Done}} Alsee (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 14 April 2025) Discussion seems to have stabilised as no new editors have contributed in over 5 days and it seems like there's consensus in favour of the proposal. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 23:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor ErnestKrause. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 18:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- (Initiated 45 days ago on 20 April 2025) Putting this here since this requires interface admin rights to implement, see WP:Gadget for more information. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Now at WP:IAN#Gadget to hide decorative sticky elements * Pppery * it has begun... 20:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
- Proposal accepted ({{Done}}) by Sohom, closure no longer needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 80 days ago on 16 March 2025) No new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 March 2025), Looks like it is long overdue to be closed. I would greatly appreciate someone taking a look. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- close by editor GN22. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Revert as WP:BADNAC by Pppery[2]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Could an admin remove the move protection at least? PackMecEng (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 27 March 2025) The discussion seems to have died out and nothing is happening. I'm not sure if it should be relisted again or just closed. I'll let the wiser heads here decide. The last comment was about a week ago. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
- I just added one more comment for the record. I still think the request needs to be closed so we can move forward. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- To editor Valjean: all XfDs belong in this section of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Even a "no consensus" would be welcome. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 85 days ago on 10 March 2025) RFC tag expired. Last comment was a few days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 07:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 26 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 47 days ago on 18 April 2025) – Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Tavix. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 30 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Bunnypranav, thank you :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 22 April 2025) This is a moratorium discussion following a recent RFC. All involved editors were pinged and there has been no new comments in 2 days. TarnishedPathtalk 23:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. TarnishedPath I just closed the related Denali Moratorium and, because it's related, I skimmed this one as well. I'm probably more willing to make early closures than most closers, but my intuition is telling me this close request is too hasty. The goal of a close is to get compliance and at least grudging respect from everyone, and I have the feeling that everyone would be best served by allowing this situation to bake in a bit more. Alsee (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Alsee I heavily suspect it's as baked as it's going to get. However, there's absolutely no harm in leaving it a bit to make sure. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- TarnishedPath I didn't mean 'baked in' as in needing more votes. I meant in terms of people coming to terms with what is already there, and potentially not being blindsided or hostile or argumentative regarding the closure itself. One factor in my intuition is that I didn't see any mention about making an early closure request. The normal default expectation is 30 days. Had there been multiple people talking about an early close request, then it would be far less shocking to discover that somebody had indeed dropped in and put a close on it. Alsee (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Alsee I heavily suspect it's as baked as it's going to get. However, there's absolutely no harm in leaving it a bit to make sure. TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. TarnishedPath I just closed the related Denali Moratorium and, because it's related, I skimmed this one as well. I'm probably more willing to make early closures than most closers, but my intuition is telling me this close request is too hasty. The goal of a close is to get compliance and at least grudging respect from everyone, and I have the feeling that everyone would be best served by allowing this situation to bake in a bit more. Alsee (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} Alsee (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 20 April 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 16 April 2025) Last !vote was four days ago. Could an experienced admin please close this discussion? The closure will possibly affect the redirect of the name (Karmelo Anthony) and other pages that mention the incident. Thanks, Some1 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 7 May 2025) Prominent set of articles with lots of flux due to being recent events. This discussion seems to be reaching a consensus already, hence requesting some bolder closures. Enough editors have replied already. Soni (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Edit: I just realised User:Extorc already merged the articles 1 2 boldly. It has not yet been challenged, 16 hours later. Perhaps a formal closure confirming the consensus to merge may be in order? Soni (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Soni I had actually initiated out another discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 06:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- In an ideal world, the secondary discussion would be merged or closed, given the first one had way more editors opining. But the talk page is a massive mess, so I'm not surprised at the many parallel discussions.
- In either case, I would prefer someone other than you properly closing the first merge discussion (even if Involved) because I'd like to not risk WP:BRD coming in the way of proper article writing. Soni (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Soni I had actually initiated out another discussion. >>> Extorc.talk 06:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing as the pages have been merged for over a day, and nobody seems to have a problem, I've just done the formal close myself (albeit involved). WP:SILENT and all that. Improving our pages takes precedence over all else. Soni (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Soni. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 10 May 2025) These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} Merged by Al-Waqīmī and {{close}} discussion closed by Soni. Boud (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 27 March 2025) The article currently has this hatnote: {{For|information on methods of suicide intervention|Suicide prevention}} and the RFC question evolved to whether it should have a hatnote that says {{For|mental health resources|meta:Mental health resources}} (either in addition to the current one, or as a substitute). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 1 April 2025) I suspect the topic area is scaring off potential closers; we have reached unanimous agreement on a move target, so this is actually a lot easier than it looks. Toadspike [Talk] 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}}. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 1 May 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Marcocapelle. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 90 days ago on 6 March 2025) Last !vote was 24 days ago. --Firestar464 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 March 2025) Requested move opened over eight weeks ago and no new comments for over a month. I think it's time to get the move template off the main article. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Adumbrativus. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 09:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- (Initiated 39 days ago on 26 April 2025) The reported editor has accepted a topic ban from South Asia. No longer necessary to keep it open. Koshuri (グ) 09:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{not done}} this is an archived ANI thread and does not need formal closure. -- asilvering (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 99 days ago on 25 February 2025) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus? As this is determining what a Manual of Style guideline actually means, I would greatly, greatly appreciate if this is not closed as "no consensus". One way or the other, but not "we have this rule and we don't know what it means, but everyone should follow it". Please. Pretty please. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 85 days ago on 11 March 2025) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Tag expired eight days after last !vote. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 days ago on 30 March 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 12 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 14 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 15 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 75 days ago on 21 March 2025) Open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Voorts. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 122 days ago on 2 February 2025) Open for 3+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 118 days ago on 6 February 2025) Open for 3+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 98 days ago on 25 February 2025) Open for almost 3 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 90 days ago on 5 March 2025) Open for 2+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 83 days ago on 13 March 2025) Open for 2+ months. No discussion despite 5(!) relists. Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 9 May 2025) This RM was closed by Abhiimanyu7, who evaluated consensus as regards the move itself. Part of the discussion was a proposal for a moratorium on name change discussions. Abhiimanyu7 stated they were unfamiliar with the concept of a moratorium and said they were amenable to my asking for another closer's assessment of consensus on that point (discussion with them was here). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 1 April 2025) Walls of text have been written. It has been over a month. Comments are still being added at a rate of one per day. Joe vom Titan (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Alalch E.. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 9 April 2025) Discussion is getting quite out of hand but consensus seems clear. I'd say this is an easy close in terms of outcome, but do your homework on your justification before calling it WP:SNOW or something. guninvalid (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 March 2025) Open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor TarnishedPath. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 18 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 1 May 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Close}} with a novice's suggestion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 19 March 2025) Ongoing for a full lunar cycle, needs closure. 66.210.235.227 (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Whoever closes this may want to consider also closing Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado outbreak. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 days ago on 30 March 2025) Open for more than a month, with limited discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 104 days ago on 20 February 2025) – Please help and consider evaluating the consensus in this review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, in a manner of speaking. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 19 March 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{resolved}}; relisted by Techie3 Stifle (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 9 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{already done}}; deleted by Explicit Stifle (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 17 April 2025) – Please review this discussion, which has been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 16 April 2025) Should be simple but needs an uninvolved close. No new comments in the last two weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 27 April 2025) - Discussion has died out some time ago, needs a close. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 1 May 2025) Discussion on this RfC seems to have run its course. Requesting the input of an uninvolved editor to assess the outcome and close it appropriately. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 7 April 2025) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs) 14:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Stifle. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 67 days ago on 29 March 2025) Last !vote four days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 08:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Dr vulpes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 2 April 2025) – this move review needs closure, please. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Extraordinary Writ. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 03:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
{{Done}} Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 122 days ago on 2 February 2025) Discussion's been open for a month and mostly stagnant, rfc tag was just archived by legobot.Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... DocZach (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, I have closed the discussion and wrote a summary of the arguments and the overall conclusion. DocZach (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unarchiving/relisting here as the close was overturned as a WP:BADNAC by an WP:INVOLVED editor per this close review Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- After the mountain of bullshit I got from The Telegraph RFC close, I'm not touching this close with a ten foot barge pole, but I'll opine here that this is a very nasty trap for the inexperienced closer. The discussion isn't hosted on WP:RSN, which I think means that even though there's consensus that this outlet is advancing a fringe narrative, nevertheless the outcome shouldn't be the effective deprecation of a source.
- This wants a triumvirate close, made by people who have high bullshit tolerance and asbestos talk pages.—S Marshall T/C 13:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- 1) There was already a RSN discussion which found
It is fairly clear from this discussion that this advocacy organisation is not reliable for facts about transgender topics (including medical topics), or such is the consensus here
[3] - so SEGM is effectively deprecated already - 2) I don't think this is a "very nasty trap", there's something like 3-1 consensus this organization is notable entirely on the basis of its FRINGE advocacy. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Slight terminology glitch: GenerallyUNRELiable, not Deprecated, which would involve an edit filter and a bot, though I'm sure Marhsall also meant GUNREL.
I also disagree that such discussions must also be discussed at RSN as Fringe already deals with very similar topics (and its noticeboard might in fact be better at dealing with such topics), and there a lessons to be learnt a prospective closer can absorb from the Telegraph close review. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- The lesson is that when S Marshall makes a close that there's no consensus about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues and WP:RSP should say so, it triggers a revert, a counter-revert, a formal overturning of the first revert, a close review, a revert of the close review close, a counter-revert, and a formal overturning of the close review close, totalling more than 150,000 words of argument; then nobody touching it for two months until Sandstein re-closes the first discussion to say there's no consensus about the Telegraph's reliability on trans issues, and now RSP says so -- leading to S Marshall's original close being fully reinstated with slightly different wording and other people's signatures.
- This stuff is so incredibly toxic that it's not to be touched by any one editor.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 100% co-sign. Not touching this. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- As the person who opened that close review, my issue with that close has always been the very wording (which involves reasoning) that was changed, and I've said so from the start of the review. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, anyone can see that the RfC declared SEGM as "fringe", and I'm saying this as someone who !voted it not to be fringe.
- However, literally nobody has discussed the implications of SEGM being fringe. That is why it's a "nasty trap": it's basically impossible to do an actual close when there's so much substantial disagreement over what being a "fringe organization" means, so this'll probably float here for the next few months until someone closes with the two words "it's fringe", and for the next few months there will be talk page arguments where people debate what that RfC outcome actually entails.
- If I were closing this (which I can't, because I'm WP:INVOLVED), I would call SEGM fringe, then tell everyone to start a new discussion to write WP:FRINGEORG or something else. Since I can't close this, I'd recommend to Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist to consider creating a WP:FRINGEORG policy, since in the 2-3 months this RfC will stew waiting for a closer it'll be possible to resolve most of the substantive disagreements that occurred at that RfC. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Chess Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Guilt by association seems to me discussion plenty. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you Chess for saying that so well.—S Marshall T/C 07:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Chess Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Guilt by association seems to me discussion plenty. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- There are several concerns with this RFC that I believe the closer should carefully consider. First, the RFC opens with a non-neutral introduction, which is contrary to WP:RFC guidelines requiring a neutral presentation of the question. Second, the RFC falls outside the scope of the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is intended for discussion of theories, not organizations, making this RFC procedurally flawed. The wording of the RFC was altered by the nominator to state that SEGM is an "organization that only exists to promote FRINGE viewpoints about trans healthcare", without identifying specific viewpoints believed to be fringe. Some users asked whether an organization that promotes a range of views, only some of which could possibly be considered fringe, can actually be designated as a fringe organization. SEGM’s main positions are opposition to the medical transition of minors, particularly through the use of puberty blockers, [4] and support for psychotherapy as a first-line treatment. [5] Both of these positions have been separately discussed on the same noticeboard. A parallel RFC regarding puberty blockers reached a strong consensus that opposition to their use is not a fringe position (see [6]) and there was no consensus that prioritizing psychotherapy constitutes a fringe position. In fact, both positions align with current medical policy in several European countries, multiple U.S. states and recent guidance from the U.S. federal administration. I think any closure must address the procedural issues, the outcomes of the related RFCs, the lack of clear identification within the RFC question of any actually fringe ideas promoted by SEGM and decide whether the RFC needs to be redone in accordance with the Wikipedia rules to discuss specific theories promoted by SEGM and not the organization in general. -JonJ937 (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please move your reiteration of arguments to the Fringe theories noticeboard. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is almost entirely false:
- 1) The RFC question itself is neutral, the short RFCBEFORE had no need to be
- 2) FTN is absolutely the place to discuss whether an individual or group is known for Fringe bullshit
- 3) There is no need to specify all their FRINGE viewpoints clarifying the scope of the question
- 4) The RFC discussed multiple FRINGE positions by SEGM: Claiming ROGD exists, promoting Gender exploratory therapy, lobbying in favor of legislative bans on GAC, and pathologizing trans identities
- 4.2) The related RFC on the pathologization of trans identities with a clear consensus that pathologizing trans people is FRINGE is another one to take into account As is your continued insistence there we can't say the theory that being trans is frequently caused by mental illness is FRINGE
- 5)
both positions align with current medical policy in several European countries, multiple U.S. states and recent guidance from the U.S. federal administration
- 1) See Transgender health care misinformation#European nations are banning gender-affirming care and 2) Pointing out Trump and Republican governors agree with you is an awful defense against accusations of FRINGE - This is also, as Aaron Liu noted, not the place to try and relitigate the RFC. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would make the same note of this reply as well. Please move your discussion that's actually about the RfC topic and not just about closing the RfC to the more transparent venue that has no possibility of clogging the CR watchlist. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not my intention to restart the argument here. I am only pointing out procedural issues that the closer needs to take into account, including discussions on some individual positions held by SEGM. JonJ937 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would make the same note of this reply as well. Please move your discussion that's actually about the RfC topic and not just about closing the RfC to the more transparent venue that has no possibility of clogging the CR watchlist. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
- Slight terminology glitch: GenerallyUNRELiable, not Deprecated, which would involve an edit filter and a bot, though I'm sure Marhsall also meant GUNREL.
- 1) There was already a RSN discussion which found
- Asked AN to hopefully move it along. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 19 March 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 23 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 85 days ago on 11 March 2025) Open for 2+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Dr vulpes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 78 days ago on 18 March 2025) Open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Beland. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 17 May 2025) I would not list this normally since it has not been 7 days (one day short), but this RM was started by and was persistently tainted by sockpuppetry. This should merit a closure. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Departure–. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 06:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 153 days ago on 2 January 2025) This discussion has been going on since the turn of the new year and has seemingly died down. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Dr vulpes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 16:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 82 days ago on 14 March 2025) RfC tag expired two weeks after last !vote. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 80 days ago on 16 March 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor voorts. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 March 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor voorts. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 60 days ago on 5 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 13:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Explicit. Rusalkii (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 20 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (by which I mean relisted, which was perhaps the coward's way out). Rusalkii (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 27 April 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 99 days ago on 25 February 2025) Open for almost 3 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: did you complete this? Natg 19 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor Compassionate727. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 123 days ago on 1 February 2025) Open for 3+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 105 days ago on 19 February 2025) Open for 3+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 84 days ago on 12 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} I have closed this discussion. Legend of 14 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 20 May 2025) A discussion on whether a Google site constitutes a reliable source. No activity in 4 days, but was auto-archived once and seems to have clear consensus. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mackensen here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 67 days ago on 29 March 2025) Should be easy enough a close that it arguably doesn't even need to be. But given that the subject area is contentious, a formal closure would be nice and will possibly prevent future disputes about the RFC's conclusions. Abecedare (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 17 May 2025) - Pretty clear consensus and no new comment in 8 days.61.8.154.62 (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 days ago on 18 May 2025) – Please review or relist the discussion about the suspect in the Killing of Austin Metcalf (name omitted for privacy reasons). --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor voorts. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 73 days ago on 23 March 2025) Open for almost 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 67 days ago on 29 March 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 13 April 2025) – No activity in proposal since 16 April, looks ready for a close. --TylerBurden (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 21 February 2025) Open for almost 3 months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} – wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 20 March 2025) MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
This page is for neutrally requesting closes, not debating the merits of the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Overall discussion started on the 20th, but a refresh to consolidate discussion and vote was made a bit later. Involved editor, but seems as though the Option A here has emerged as the narrow consensus here. No new discussion in last 3 days. Still need non-involved editor/admin to assess separately and close here though. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
|
- Just adding here in case it’s not been said, that discussion has been open for two months and needs closure. As noted below, whoever closes should also look at #Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025 as well since both are related to the same move requests. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also noting this RM also was started by a sock that was apparently blocked a day after the RM was made and yet I or no one else saw this. Not quite sure if this merits as tainted as well considering afterwards no sockpuppetry appeared to occur, but that is up to non-involved to assess. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
{{Done}} – wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 20 March 2025) Has been going on for nearly two months and need closure, especially in light of a similar situation occurring on Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025. 2600:387:15:5116:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Above user has been blocked as a sock, but as an involved party, I can attest to this entire discussion being a mess that would benefit from not being open in the background. Departure– (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} – wbm1058 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 76 days ago on 20 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Natg 19: {{Close}}. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 72 days ago on 24 March 2025) Open for over 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doing...Legend of 14 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Natg 19: {{Close}}. Legend of 14 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 26 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Natg 19: {{close}}. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 11 April 2025) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion as it has been a week since I relisted it, and no new comments have been raised. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 23:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
- {{Close}}. @Trailblazer101: I have closed the discussion, and have tagged the redirects to be overridden as WP:CSD G6. Legend of 14 (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 10 April 2025) - RfC expired. This RfC was a bit of a mess, but was a pretty simple question so hopefully a straightforward close. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- {{close}} by editor S Marshall. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 32 days ago on 3 May 2025) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 67 days ago on 29 March 2025) Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 22 May 2025) 4th ANI discussion on Newsjunkie. No substantive comments for 4 days, no further evidence forthcoming. Closure would clarify whether report was warranted or spurious, and prevent further disruption if warranted or timesink if spurious. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm literally begging an admin to close this. wound theology◈ 18:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I would like it closed too regardless of the outcome. While I hope claims and counterclaims are investigated, mostly I'm just really confused at this point about what I or anybody is allowed to do anymore and could use some guidance. newsjunkie (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- {{done}} CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 2 April 2025) Last comment 15 days ago. The requested move discussion has been inactive for over two weeks and appears to be stale. Requesting a neutral closer to assess and formally close the discussion. 149.40.127.191 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
- Doing... Legend of 14 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Legend of 14 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 days ago on 26 April 2025) Closure is requested after the last comment on 26 April 2025. – WikiHelper232 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)