Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 44
 | 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 40 | ← | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 |
Completed - (Initiated 106 days ago on 10 June 2026)
No edits since 10 July, but edits being reverted on basis of open RFC. cagliost (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 164 days ago on 13 April 2026)
Most of the usual TfD closers are involved and the discussion is getting quite old. Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
Closed by editor Epicgenius. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 98 days ago on 18 June 2026)
Requesting admin closure on this TfD. I feel the discussion may have run its course, and as this comment in particular points out, due to the nature and widespread (across film articles) use of these templates, the TfD may be attracting a disproportionate number of "Keep" !votes from editors who are comfortable with the template and consequently wish to retain it without a full understanding of or consideration for why other editors find their use problematic...or, put more bluntly, editors who are less familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be !voting "WP:ILIKEIT the way it is" without familiarizing themselves with the arguments in favor of deleting or at least auto-substituting the templates. Indeed, many of the !votes don't even address the possibility of auto-substitution that was raised in the opening remarks. Thank you for your review! DonIago (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree with DonIago about closing this. I don't have a strong opinion on this (I came to closure request this page mostly because I saw the RfD link while browsing a film page, despite it being a month since this started) but just want this to be closed, whichever way the decision goes. I think it's not quite as clear there's a consensus for Delete, since there have been some arguments for Keeping and Deleting that have been supported by multiple voters (for keeping, Sdkb argued in detail that it's easier to maintain consistency, especially when RT/Metacritic change; for deleting, Οἶδα argued that it's used to override custom text and makes it harder to edit individual articles). I'm honestly OK with both outcomes, but just want to close this since it doesn't feel like there's been any big change in the discussion since the last time I saw it and don't think it's worth keeping open. Arcinati (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Closed (by editor Primefac). Doniago (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC) (P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 08:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC))
Completed - (Initiated 78 days ago on 8 July 2026)
Has been open for nearly 3 weeks now and discussion slowed considerably after the 17th, aside from one or two comments. Think closure is warranted now. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Primefac. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 149 days ago on 28 April 2026)
Ready to be closed -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
- This is going to be a hard (but unheated) discussion to close. Props to whoever tackles it. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- Note to closer: The discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 518#Omniglot after 5 days of inactivity. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Royz-vi Tsibele. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 101 days ago on 15 June 2026)
- More than 1 month passed. Orientls (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 87 days ago on 29 June 2026)
Since it involves a controversial subject, a formal closure by an uninvolved editor will help avoid disputes in the future, even if the discussion was pretty straight-forward. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 11:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- N.B. the discussion section contains arguments and workshops an option not originally proposed. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 07:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed; courtesy ping for the lister: Ixtal. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 17:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 78 days ago on 8 July 2026)
This discussion has been going on for a few weeks now. Most people chose the darker version due to the official sources using it. But one user wanted to use the lighter variant due to it being printed on the flag itself. Dmdjdu 13:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Abo Yemen. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 19:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 58 days ago on 28 July 2026)
This discussion has currently been open for more than seven days, has received adequate participation and unanimous support, for this reason the merge discussion seems easy to close with a clear consensus in favour of merging. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Axolitl at 04:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 04:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 58 days ago on 28 July 2026)
Request to move Lorenzo Mauldin to Lorenzo Mauldin IV in order to retitle the page as the subject's WP:COMMONNAME, per the BC Lions' transactions page and the Canadian Football League's website, as there is an existing redirect which has been edited multiple times under the target name, which prevents the page from being renamed and moved automatically. Originally requested as an uncontroversial technical move at WP:RM, this change was contested by @Confused Spirit due to sources covering Mauldin IV's NFL career, including ESPN and AP, conflicting with the above named CFL sources, in regards to the use of the "IV" suffix and so discussion was apparently required per the same user. The move has now just about reached the end of its' 7-day discussion period with no participation whatsoever, beyond my own, and so I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator please close the discussion early on these grounds as the move has clearly been proven to be uncontroversial after all.. This has also been crossposted to WP:RM#Administrator needed. Thank you in advance. FHSIG13 TALK 07:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
Courtesy link: The active RMTR request can be found at: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#c-Fhsig13-20260728230600-Ranch9613-20260803013700 (permalink). @Fhsig13, I understand the frustration of having to go through all this rigmarole for a change that seems obvious to you, but I'm no seeing any cause for an early closure here. Cross-posting the same request in multiple venues is generally unhelpful and should be avoided (See : WP:MULTI). —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Myceteae Please accept my apologies, I was not aware that cross-posting is frowned upon, and so I will not engage in that moving forward. That said, I disagree with your assessment of the cause for early closure. I firmly believe that opening this discussion was unnecessary to begin with as the article in question is not one of high-traffic and so I never expected any real participation to occur, and opened the discussion solely because one editor contested the technical move (but never registered a formal objection in the discussion), and so I am still requesting an early closure on the grounds that the move should have been deemed uncontroversial from the outset. Thank you. FHSIG13 TALK 18:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Also with the only participation in the discussion limited to one support bid which includes more evidence to support the move, against no objections, I believe WP:Snowball may now apply as well. FHSIG13 TALK 18:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- For our purposes,
controversial
includes any move that another editor has previously objected to. Really, the language is potentially controversial. The snowball clause is invoked when there is a lot of participation and opinions are unanimous (or nearly so). Lack of participation is generally not an indication for an early closure, especially when there has been at least some challenge raised in the past. Multiple editors at RMTR have also explained why this does not meet the standard for an early close. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)- Again, I disagree and continue to request early closure on the grounds that is all but impossible for any editor to raise a valid objection at this point, due to the presence of overwhelming evidence which assures the legitimacy of the requested move. Keeping the discussion open for the remaining 10 or so hours is completely unnecessary at this point as there is not a snowball's chance in hell of the proposal failing to pass. FHSIG13 TALK 20:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- For our purposes,
- Also with the only participation in the discussion limited to one support bid which includes more evidence to support the move, against no objections, I believe WP:Snowball may now apply as well. FHSIG13 TALK 18:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Myceteae Please accept my apologies, I was not aware that cross-posting is frowned upon, and so I will not engage in that moving forward. That said, I disagree with your assessment of the cause for early closure. I firmly believe that opening this discussion was unnecessary to begin with as the article in question is not one of high-traffic and so I never expected any real participation to occur, and opened the discussion solely because one editor contested the technical move (but never registered a formal objection in the discussion), and so I am still requesting an early closure on the grounds that the move should have been deemed uncontroversial from the outset. Thank you. FHSIG13 TALK 18:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by BilledMammal at 02:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC). Fhsig13, please take note of the extra parameters in the template. (Independently, my criteria for SNOW is something around 5-7 !votes either way coupled with a lack of opposition that is anywhere close to ephemeral, let alone substantial.) In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 04:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 104 days ago on 12 June 2026)
R. G. Checkers talk 07:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Shall I re-request a closure at WP:AN then? Honestly, I really hate to extend the archiving delay (especially to prevent the bot from archiving the thread). --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- George Ho, just mark it as archived when it gets archived. We'll get to it eventually. CR is separate from AN for a reason. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 00:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Archival without closure isn't what I'm seeking for that thread, actually. Also, why isn't requesting at AN necessary other than being
separate from AN for a reason
? George Ho (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)- Archiving does not affect whether something gets closed. I'd say most contentious but unsanctioned topics' major discussions like this only get closed after archival, actually. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I promise I will get around to closing the notability discussions and this if someone else doesn’t beat me to the punch :) just have to wrap up stuff in my offline life and shepherd DYKs. Just need two free hours In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 01:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- CR was once part of AN. It was split off more than five years ago, see Wikipedia talk:Closure requests/Archive 3#Requested move 15 March 2021 and the thread immediately following. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Aaron, but... I wonder how aware other people are about closures after archival... besides posting a notice? George Ho (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- When an archived thread is closed, it is customarily unarchived. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Personally not a fan of un-archiving the thread. George Ho (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- What Aaron said. If you think that posting it at AN will bear fruit, please do; sometimes it works, as with this RfC. But I also see an RM sitting there for five days that is about to be archived without action. (There’s an RM section here, and elapsed RMs get listed either at WP:RME or WP:RMB, where the usual RM closures pick them off.) In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 19:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- An RfC and an RM are different animals. Were you comparing them both? If so, why? Furthermore, talk pages of articles have varied and been less visible, especially if topics are less obscure. George Ho (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- When an archived thread is closed, it is customarily unarchived. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I promise I will get around to closing the notability discussions and this if someone else doesn’t beat me to the punch :) just have to wrap up stuff in my offline life and shepherd DYKs. Just need two free hours In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 01:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Archiving does not affect whether something gets closed. I'd say most contentious but unsanctioned topics' major discussions like this only get closed after archival, actually. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Archival without closure isn't what I'm seeking for that thread, actually. Also, why isn't requesting at AN necessary other than being
- The instructions at the top are clear:
Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that by restoring the discussion from the archive as they close it.
And other CR regulars here have told you that unarchiving discussions in order to write a formal close is routine business. And you do have the option to just extend the auto-archive delay. I do understand why it's undesirable to have discussions like this get archived before a close is written. This is on the radar and at least one editor has said they plan to close when time allows. I'm not sure there's more that can be done. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
- George Ho, just mark it as archived when it gets archived. We'll get to it eventually. CR is separate from AN for a reason. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 00:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Beland at 22:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC) pursuant to my question on their talk. Pinging the lister R. G. Checkers and those who might otherwise be curious: George Ho, Aaron Liu, Myceteae. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 22:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 65 days ago on 21 July 2026)
This has been at the bottom of Old business for a few days now. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 82 days ago on 4 July 2026)
Needs to be closed or relisted. – KaijuEditor (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relists aren't allowed in WP:SPLIT discussions FaviFake (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed, KaijuEditor. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 62 days ago on 24 July 2026)
This discussion has been going for about seven days and has received a good amount of participation to gauge WP:CONSENSUS from. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- Closed, Qwerty123M. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 02:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 127 days ago on 20 May 2026)
– 339 comments, 59 people in discussion, new comments have mostly died off. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Discussion has died down and now it is on a standalone page. Only one new comment since the page was split. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this needs a close, it was just a poll not a RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- I moved this to the correct section (it was in the RFC section), and then found it already had a request so I appended it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- This should definitely be closed, it was a large discussion. FaviFake (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Buy should such a decision be made based on a straw poll rather than a formal RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It shouldn't, but this was clearly not a straw poll and was structured like a RfC, even if it wasn't one. FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- See the link in my first comment to the editor who started the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I saw it. My comment doesn't contradict it. FaviFake (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Whether it was structured like a RFC doesn't matter, the purpose of a RFC is to draw attention from editors unrelated to the discussion. A straw poll doesn't really do that, and it doesn't appear to have been the intended purpose of the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Then what should be done with the original proposal? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, it should be closed. It attracted 345 comments, more than enough to form a consensus. FaviFake (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Then what should be done with the original proposal? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Whether it was structured like a RFC doesn't matter, the purpose of a RFC is to draw attention from editors unrelated to the discussion. A straw poll doesn't really do that, and it doesn't appear to have been the intended purpose of the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I saw it. My comment doesn't contradict it. FaviFake (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- See the link in my first comment to the editor who started the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It shouldn't, but this was clearly not a straw poll and was structured like a RfC, even if it wasn't one. FaviFake (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Buy should such a decision be made based on a straw poll rather than a formal RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 120 days ago on 27 May 2026)
It's been a week, about 2 days since last !vote. Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- I'll give this a shot after having my lunch. No objection if someone gets there first, though it sure doesn't look like that's going to happen. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Lunch has been had and closure is in progress. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Request for Comment: Reliability of CBS News under Bari Weiss
Completed - (Initiated 93 days ago on 23 June 2026)
One or more uninvolved closers needed please. —George Ho (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Just read through most of the thread. Oy... I'm going to re-read it all tomorrow and give it a day or two, but hopefully I'll be able to give this a close sometime next week. If I don't get to it though (which is a sizeable possibility), someone else closing this monster of an RfC would be highly appreciated. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 04:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- @George Ho: Closed It goes without saying that this is a rather contentious RfC, so if anyone would like to challenge my closure and take a shot at it, I'd welcome that. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 21:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 56 days ago on 31 July 2026)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed, House. In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 21:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 84 days ago on 2 July 2026)
Discussion seems to be losing activity; no comments in several days. RanDom 404 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 110 days ago on 6 June 2026)
Closure long overdue, IMO. --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted In solidarity, Destinyokhiria (talk / cont) 10:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done by Explicit. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 64 days ago on 22 July 2026)
It has been a few weeks now, and we have tried relisting a couple times, but there appears to be clear consensus to redirect the article. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 66 days ago on 20 July 2026)
The discussion remains active but there have been no new bolded !votes since the first relist on August 5. It is now mostly already involved editors going back and forth rehashing their interpretations of the naming convention. The relist was certainly reasonable but I don't see that it has helped to attract new participation or build consensus. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Levivich (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 215 days ago on 21 February 2026)
No discussion in months, seems to have died out.Roads192 (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
Not done. This is a discussion between two users. A summary of that discussion by a third editor is not needed. Levivich (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)- @Levivich Please reconsider. WP:SPLITCLOSE says that involved editors can close the discussion only if the result is near-unanimous, otherwise a WP:SPLIT discussion need to be closed by an uninvolved editor:
FaviFake (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to split has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the split proposal or the discussion. If necessary, a request that an administrator, who is not involved, close the discussion can be made at the Closure requests noticeboard.
- No problem, feel free to close it. Also just noting that I just struck the "admin" part from that line in wp:split, doesn't need to be an admin to close it. Levivich (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! I suspect that page is very out of date despite being the current process. FaviFake (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Given that a close was requested, if by an LTA, I've closed as no consensus. LightlySeared (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! I suspect that page is very out of date despite being the current process. FaviFake (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- No problem, feel free to close it. Also just noting that I just struck the "admin" part from that line in wp:split, doesn't need to be an admin to close it. Levivich (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Levivich Please reconsider. WP:SPLITCLOSE says that involved editors can close the discussion only if the result is near-unanimous, otherwise a WP:SPLIT discussion need to be closed by an uninvolved editor:
Completed - (Initiated 186 days ago on 22 March 2026)
Majority of the lengthy discussion occurred between 22-30 March with 2 additional comments in April (it has been a few days since the last comment). Given the range of views, a formal close would be helpful. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
- There was a resurgence of discussion in May 2026. While it has just been auto-moved to the archive, a formal closure would be useful in updating TheGamer's entry in the project's list of sources. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
- Not done. Consensus here is obvious, the proposal is near-unanimously opposed. Any involved participant can write a summary of that discussion and update the WikiProject listing, an uninvolved closer isn't necessary. Also, after four months, no uninvolved closer seems to be volunteering to summarize this long discussion. Levivich (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 84 days ago on 2 July 2026)
Legobot's done it again Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- Doing... Levivich (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Levivich (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 77 days ago on 9 July 2026)
WP:WALLOFTEXT discussion (my bad) about a redirect with an unusual history. Last relist nearly a month ago. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- From reviewing the discussion, it seems that a consensus for deletion is present. I'm not an admin, so if an admin could come around and close this, that would be appreciated. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 12:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Rusalkii. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 49 days ago on 6 August 2026)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed and listed at WP:CFDWM. Staraction (talk · contribs) 13:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 49 days ago on 6 August 2026)
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed and listed at WP:CFDW. Staraction (talk · contribs) 13:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 62 days ago on 24 July 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 18:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 169 days ago on 8 April 2026)
voorts (talk/contributions) 21:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Beland. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 04:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 48 days ago on 7 August 2026)
Discussion petered out, but TA keeps posting demanding for action. If neither the filing nor counterfiling have merit, it should be closed to prevent relitigation of complaints. If one or both filings have merit, all parties would benefit from a clear resolutoion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
|
Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 42 days ago on 13 August 2026)
- trying to withdraw this nom. Wikiman (Talk)
- Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 48 days ago on 7 August 2026)
This discussion has not been open for seven days yet but may require closure under the snowball clause per WP:SNOW as opposition to the proposed move is unanimous and has built up quickly. Qwerty123M (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Comment: RMs involving WP:NOYEAR are frequently contentious and the guideline itself is a frequent topic of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (events), including an ongoing RFC on the wording which has both rehashed arguments from the 'no consensus' RFC in October and generated proposals for a separate RFC to address wording in another part of the NOYEAR guidance. Anyone seeking to close this should be familiar with the contours of these debates, especially if one is going to invoke the snowball clause for a very early close. I would prefer to leave this open longer, and ideally for the full seven days, even though editors who usually disagree on the NOYEAR threshold are in unanimous agreement so far. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Note that we are approaching the week mark. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by me. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done by 1isall. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:43, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by me. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Note that we are approaching the week mark. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 79 days ago on 7 July 2026)
FaviFake (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: The discussion has been moved to a dedicated subpage – Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions? It remains open, and I do think a formal close would be helpful. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 23:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 46 days ago on 9 August 2026)
Consensus appears clear after 7 days. This is an easy close but I'm listing here because the RM has generated discussion about potential changes to other titles. Discussion now is mostly repetitive arguments or tangents. Though not disruptive, it would be "cleaner" to have a timely close if this is going to inspire new RMs that might reference this discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Chess enjoyer (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Note that I already set
done=yesbefore @Chess enjoyer replied. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)- Thanks to you both! —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Note that I already set
Completed - (Initiated 46 days ago on 9 August 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days and has received modest participation. The discussion has a balance of votes in support of and against this proposal. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Qwerty123M: Closed Requested the move on WP:RMTR. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 15:12, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 40 days ago on 15 August 2026)
Obviously, and since there is already a clear consensus per WP:SNOW. HurricaneEdgar 01:24, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 67 days ago on 19 July 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 14:51, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 162 days ago on 15 April 2026)
– relisting this due to possible confusion before as to whether a similar RfC was open. Rfc is now definitely closed. We want to know if sources support a statement... Slava570 (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- The RfC is closed, but the discussion is continuing and new sources are being presented. The discussion has moved to Talk:Zionism and the latest comments in that discussion are from a few minutes ago, including users (eg myself) presenting novel sources.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- The RfC turned into a regular discussion that seems to have ended. Is it possible to close both of these together? NorthernWinds ❄️ (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Slava570@Vice regent, I can’t close this, as mentioned way back in April. But, for the benefit of other CR regulars, is a formal close still necessary? It’s been two and a half months since the relist with no interest in sight. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 18:48, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I realize this would probably be a massive pain in the butt for whoever closes it, but if at all possible, I think it would be hugely beneficial to have a formal close. It is very difficult to make any changes on the Zionism page. Even minor changes seem to take an inordinate amount of debate and discussion, so it seems to me it would be a waste of a rare chance to make some potential changes to the article. Would it be okay to keep it listed here for a little while longer? Eventually if no one wants to slog through the discussion, we will have to just let it go... Slava570 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- Massive is understating it, haha. It would require reading a very long discussion involving dozens of sources, some in foreign languages; all this itself in what’s probably the most contentious topic on the project and currently in real life. And we can’t even devolve to !vote-count very effectively as it’s about what the sources as a whole say.
- You are well within your rights to have this to be kept here indefinitely, and I sympathize immensely with the difficulty of making changes to the article. I just wonder what the utility of keeping this here is when the likelihood of someone seeing this, being capable of closure, and being willing to close is infinitesimal.
- I’m willing to help however I can where it comes to evaluating consensus. I consider myself conflicted from this as I had previously declined to close older discussions relating to this, which led to our adventure at AE with M.Bitton. This discussion is not nearly as old as that one was then, though.
- I guess should you and the other CT/A-I regulars consider me an acceptable closer, I’ll see what I can do, but no guarantees on the timeline (see my user talk: I have work and grad school). Keep in mind though that anyone else can push to overturn my hypothetical close, as conflicts are defined broadly. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 20:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have no objections personally, but I think you have a better idea of what the right move is. Sorry I can't be of more help beyond that... Slava570 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I realize this would probably be a massive pain in the butt for whoever closes it, but if at all possible, I think it would be hugely beneficial to have a formal close. It is very difficult to make any changes on the Zionism page. Even minor changes seem to take an inordinate amount of debate and discussion, so it seems to me it would be a waste of a rare chance to make some potential changes to the article. Would it be okay to keep it listed here for a little while longer? Eventually if no one wants to slog through the discussion, we will have to just let it go... Slava570 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've just looked at this in depth, and it's utterly ghastly. I'm not willing to close this as a solo effort but I'd be willing to join a panel. Do we have any stalwart closers with iron resolve and asbestos talk pages who fancy collaborating on a closing statement that'd survive the inevitable close review?—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- You should probably ask at WP:DFD. FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion but I'll be the judge of what I should do.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- That was indeed just an opinion :) FaviFake (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion but I'll be the judge of what I should do.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- S Marshall, I'll give the discussion a skim and see whether it's a piranha pit worth swimming in before I give an answer one way or another. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think based on the bans mentioned below and the heat of the discussion from the onset, regardless of whichever way the closure goes this will undoubtedly be dragged through AN for closure review and so on and so forth. I'm not entirely confident I should sign up for the panel with the expectation that, next week and onwards, I will have a series of off-wiki life events that will require a majority of my time (starting a Master's). Therefore, I will decline swimming in this pit at this time, which is not to say that I'm against joining similar panels later when the timing's more maneuverable. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think you're right. Thank you for considering it.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think based on the bans mentioned below and the heat of the discussion from the onset, regardless of whichever way the closure goes this will undoubtedly be dragged through AN for closure review and so on and so forth. I'm not entirely confident I should sign up for the panel with the expectation that, next week and onwards, I will have a series of off-wiki life events that will require a majority of my time (starting a Master's). Therefore, I will decline swimming in this pit at this time, which is not to say that I'm against joining similar panels later when the timing's more maneuverable. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- (raises hand) In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 19:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Awesome! If Ixtal's up for it then me + Iseult + Ixtal looks like a sufficient panel.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- S Marshall, now that I have my laptop, let me clarify my comments to Slava above. I have a very conservative conflict based off of this comment I made. Looking back, I think it was far too cautious of me to do so; closing stale discussions is not good practice. Slava above (granted, TBAN incoming for them) was fine with a solo closure by me; I've closed several discussions in the topic area. I had been considering polling the original participants (those that aren't TBANed) to see if they were also fine with this. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 01:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the NORN discussion needs a closure. Given that most of the original participants have subsequently been topic-banned, a fresh discussion with more explicit focus would be the best way forward. Katzrockso (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Subject to what the panel thinks, personally I'd be minded to close it all. The NORN one and all the follow-ons. There's been sufficient input and it's time to move on. How to weight the !votes of the now-tbanned editors is complex and difficult, and something I'd want to discuss with the panel because some I'd give more weight to than others. There are plenty of other difficult facets of this too.
- Iseult is wise to be leery of closing anything in a topic area where they've ever said they're INVOLVED. Being on a panel ought to be ok, though, imo.—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I count four editors TBANed/sitebanned, one pending, ten without sanctions that I’m aware of. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 15:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think the NORN discussion needs a closure. Given that most of the original participants have subsequently been topic-banned, a fresh discussion with more explicit focus would be the best way forward. Katzrockso (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- S Marshall, now that I have my laptop, let me clarify my comments to Slava above. I have a very conservative conflict based off of this comment I made. Looking back, I think it was far too cautious of me to do so; closing stale discussions is not good practice. Slava above (granted, TBAN incoming for them) was fine with a solo closure by me; I've closed several discussions in the topic area. I had been considering polling the original participants (those that aren't TBANed) to see if they were also fine with this. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 01:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Awesome! If Ixtal's up for it then me + Iseult + Ixtal looks like a sufficient panel.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- You should probably ask at WP:DFD. FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Do we have an experienced closer with iron resolve and asbestos talk page willing to volunteer join a panel to close this?—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently not. Referred to WP:AN, see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Failed closure request.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, from reading the AN discussion, it sounds like the community doesn't want this to be closed! Not done.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- OK, from reading the AN discussion, it sounds like the community doesn't want this to be closed!
- Apparently not. Referred to WP:AN, see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Failed closure request.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 84 days ago on 2 July 2026)
Tag was removed two weeks ago, was just reminded of it by a TA making another !vote. All other votes had happened over a month ago. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 79 days ago on 7 July 2026)
More than 20 days have passed since last comment.
CSGinger14 (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
- Doing... LightlySeared (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done Longest close I've done yet, feedback welcome. LightlySeared (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 58 days ago on 28 July 2026)
This discussion needs to be closed or relisted as it has been more than seven days since it was last relisted. Bear in mind that the guideline WP:RELIST says In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice.
Qwerty123M (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Doczilla at 21:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 05:24, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
–
PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Relisted -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:12, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 63 days ago on 23 July 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 23:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently @Axolitl relisted it right after @Voorts already did so. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- The relist was a mistake, so I tried to undo it. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 03:59, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- The relist was a mistake, so I tried to undo it. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Apparently @Axolitl relisted it right after @Voorts already did so. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed. FYI User:1isall. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Alright! Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 13:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 51 days ago on 4 August 2026)
This discussion was last relisted more than seven days ago so needs closure or relisting now. I would prefer this discussion not be relisted though. Qwerty123M (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed FYI User:Qwerty123M. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
–
PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed. FYI User:PlainWikiUser1
- Forgot to sign above comment. That was me. Re-pinging User:PlainWikiUser1 as FYI since the last one may not have gone through without a signature. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
–
PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed. FYI User:PlainWikiUser1 —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 166 days ago on 11 April 2026)
No replies as of recently. – KaijuEditor (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 00:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
- @KaijuEditor: This discussion, mostly from April and May, looks like no consensus at first glance, but more importantly it looks stale, as there have since been related MfD, RFD, and RM. It seems like if, after the dust settles, there's still a desire to split, a new discussion should be started to address the current circumstances. After two months without a closer, I'm inclined to mark this "not done", unless you or anyone else thinks it should remain listed here? Levivich (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. @Fgnievinski had mentioned they intended to resolve the duplication in this comment, but they haven't done anything in the month since that comment was posted. I'd like to know if they can give us any more input on this? FaviFake (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
- Not done. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I endorse the decision to record this as 'not done' and allow it to remain archived without a formal close. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed. @Fgnievinski had mentioned they intended to resolve the duplication in this comment, but they haven't done anything in the month since that comment was posted. I'd like to know if they can give us any more input on this? FaviFake (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
This discussion has been open for seven days so is in need of closure or relisting, this discussion has had modest participation and I think consensus would oppose this move without further responses, I think a relisting may be necessary for a more clear consensus. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted, — Raihanur (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done by EdJohnston. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
–
Please close the following Requested Move discussions, as they have been open for well over seven days.
All five discussions have passed the normal seven-day discussion period without being closed or relisted and the discussions currently appear to have a clear consensus in support of the proposed titles. Thank you. PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- N.B. for closers: there’s a possibly-relevant RfC above regarding NCWWW waiting to be closed. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 15:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please note that there is a discussion about whether or not this and the request below should be marked as
|done=yesat Wikipedia talk:Closure requests#Filling out {{Initiated}} done= when a discussion is relisted. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please note that there is a discussion about whether or not this and the request below should be marked as
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
–
PlainWikiUser1 (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
- Relisted —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 64 days ago on 22 July 2026)
I believe this is ready to close but at a minimum it should be relisted. The discussion is more than a month old and the second relist was more than two weeks ago (August 7). —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Paine Ellsworth at 05:43, 24 August 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 30 days ago on 25 August 2026)
It has only been open a day, but as it will affect an item currently on the mainpage, and has already received significant and mostly one sided participation, I'm listing for close now. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 73 days ago on 13 July 2026)
New closure needed after an NAC was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 August 18. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done by Goldsztajn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 66 days ago on 20 July 2026)
Open for over a month, with little participation since the first week. Can someone put this to rest? I'm involved. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Already done by @MSK –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 35 days ago on 20 August 2026)
This discussion has almost run for seven days but should be closed per WP:SNOW as the responses are unanimously against this proposal with reasonable arguments from all participants. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Jeffrey34555. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 03:26, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 433 days ago on 18 July 2025)
- Discussion has been going on for more than a year, and needs someone uninvolved to assess where it's at. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 28 days ago on 27 August 2026)
It's WP:SNOWing. TarnishedPathtalk 09:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 111 days ago on 5 June 2026)
This big RfC has been going on for almost 3 months and the last reply was a little under 2 months ago. Contentious topic, obviously. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 23:42, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
- Doing... Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele (redt mit mir!) 22:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Maltazarian: Closed This was a somewhat difficult RfC to go through, so if anyone wants to challenge my evaluation go ahead. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele (redt mit mir!) 22:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 60 days ago on 26 July 2026)
Legobot has removed the RfC template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khiikiat (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 75 days ago on 11 July 2026)
This RfC has been open since 11 July, and the last comment was on 14 July. The discussion raises several questions about sources and map selection, so an uninvolved close would be useful. AaronZ345 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @AaronZ345: Closed While no substantial consensus appeared to emerge in this RfC, I'd be hopeful for one to come about in future discussions, both for this article and for setting precedent. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele (redt mit mir!) 21:04, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 50 days ago on 5 August 2026)
Elapsed discussion that was relisted once 11 days ago. The only two bolded !votes are from within the last 24 hours. I have no objection to a second relist to allow more time to respond to the new !votes and to generate more discussion. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 26 days ago on 29 August 2026)
Please close my proposal that I've withdrawn. Koubaki (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed per request. FYI User:Koubaki. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 34 days ago on 21 August 2026)
Urging an uninvolved admin to remove extended confirmed right from the user. Orientls (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Orientls, for future reference: please note that requests here should be neutrally worded. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thread archived. It would be better to use AE. Request withdrawn. Orientls (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Withdrawn by nom. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 06:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 80 days ago on 6 July 2026)
Legobot's removed the tag Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
Kowal2701: Done. Should I notify any other page? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- not a clue! pinging @Femke Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 76 days ago on 10 July 2026)
Discussion ran six weeks and is now stalled. The disputed lead sentence was originally added by one of the RfC participants. An attempt to close and implement the apparent trend towards removal was reverted. Requesting an uninvolved editor assess consensus and close. Chopcha (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 67 days ago on 19 July 2026)
There doesn't seem to be interest in any further discussion and Legobot has now de-tagged it (30-day limit). SinhalaLion (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 70 days ago on 16 July 2026)
Three separate proposals on the table. Note that the discussion is presently archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- As suggested on my talk page, can an uninvolved admin transfer this archived discussion back to the noticeboard, so that I can contribute to the subsection, "Where We Are", before it is closed? Thanks in advance for your consideration! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 21:24, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
- Done See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#SmokeyJoe_disruption_of_RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you beyond words, editor LaundryPizza03! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @LaundryPizza03: Is there a reason this was archived from ANI but restored to AN? - The Bushranger One ping only 15:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you beyond words, editor LaundryPizza03! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Barkeep49. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 35 days ago on 20 August 2026)
Auto-archived without resolution. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 63 days ago on 23 July 2026)
Last comment was 4 days ago and RFC tag has expired. TarnishedPathtalk 02:10, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Respectfully requesting delay of closure, as the starter of the RfC, for a few days. Information that has come up in the discussion recently carries substancial potential of change to consensus. Editors who gave their stance on the basis of the lack of this information have been pinged so they may correct their stance as I have. It is no use to Wikipedia if the new information immediately requires a new RfC on the grounds that the old one failed to provide adequate information to editors. Finfixer (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
- Alright it has been 3 days. The RfC is ripe for closure and the new evidence has received over a week of time to make an impact, three days of which under ping to impacted editors. There is no reason to delay the resolution to this question further. I welcome closure by an uninvolved closer. Finfixer (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- @TarnishedPath @Finfixer Closed. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele (redt mit mir!) 01:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 91 days ago on 25 June 2026)
This proposal wasn't closed and if there's consensus for the proposal it's better to have a clear closing statement to specify the result. FaviFake (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to close this honestly. There was clearly no consensus for the change, let alone the kind of wide participation that would be needed to actually implement such a change without the pitchforks coming out. ;; Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Makes sense, I marked it as done. FaviFake (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 130 days ago on 18 May 2026)
Conversation has stopped. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 49 days ago on 6 August 2026)
RFC template has been removed. A few comments have trickled in recently, so might need to be left a few more days. I don't think this should be a difficult close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 40 days ago on 15 August 2026)
No !votes in four days and discussion has slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 12:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Last comment was eight days ago if anyone is keen. TarnishedPathtalk 08:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Reconrabbit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:37, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 29 days ago on 26 August 2026)
This discussion may require closure per WP:SNOW as all responses have been in favour of this proposal with five days since nomination. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Techie3. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 05:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 66 days ago on 20 July 2026)
Coming up on 30 days. Last comment was 7 days ago and much of the duration of the RFC has been rehashing old arguments. WP:NOYEAR has become a perennial subject of disputes. A timely close would be valuable regardless of the outcome and next steps. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 71 days ago on 15 July 2026)
* Pppery * in solidarity 01:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
@Pppery: Done RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 66 days ago on 20 July 2026)
Discussion has run for over 30 days and the last comment was 11 days ago. Multiple participants (including the last commenter) have since been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NormalguyfromUK and for use of LLM, and their votes have been struck. Ripe for an uninvolved closure to determine the consensus. FranéRogoz (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 37 days ago on 18 August 2026)
First off, English isn't my mother tongue, and I'm not a fluent speaker. Second, I opened and voted in this RfC. Third, I don't think there's an obvious consensus. Thanks in advance, Thedarkknightli (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC) Edited for clarity at 05:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 31 days ago on 24 August 2026)
This discussion was last relisted more than seven days ago. The sensible option is to close this discussion as "no consensus" instead of relisting the discussion further as we did not get much productive discussion following the first relisting. I say that this discussion should be closed as "no consensus" because I would withdraw the proposal if the discussion is relisted further because I recognise that there is not enough information to make a good decision. Qwerty123M (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed as 'no consensus'. FYI User:Qwerty123M. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 962 days ago on 5 February 2024)
- No comments in two years. — KaijuEditor (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- KaijuEditor, not done; it’s a very old discussion and the lede in question has changed without noted protest. Seems to be moot. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 16:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 54 days ago on 1 August 2026)
Please close this now, it's been a month. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 00:40, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by User:Dekimasu. FYI User:1isall. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- 10-4, @Myceteae. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 15:23, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 22 days ago on 2 September 2026)
OP has acknowledged it was wrong to start a page move over the title which was concluded barely 1 month ago. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- The discussion seems ineligible for early closure as the opposition isn't unanimous, so you should wait 7 days. FaviFake (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- @FaviFake: Where does it say that we are supposed to entertain a new discussion every single month? Can you cite a precedent? Why do you think WP:MR exists? Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Chronos.Zx, that's not what FaviFake is saying. In any case, I don't see an open-and-shut case for early closure yet, but will keep an eye on it in case there comes to be one. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 05:11, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Where does it say that we are supposed to entertain a new discussion every single month?
Nowhere.
Why do you think WP:MR exists?
To review closed discussions. This one is still open. FaviFake (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- @FaviFake: Where does it say that we are supposed to entertain a new discussion every single month? Can you cite a precedent? Why do you think WP:MR exists? Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by User:Axolitl. FYI User:Chronos.Zx. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, regards. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 31 days ago on 24 August 2026)
Has a proposal that needs closing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 76 days ago on 10 July 2026)
Fairly long discussion for RFD with several alternative proposals. Third relist August 30 with no new contributions since. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by voorts at 23:23, 11 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 08:21, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 57 days ago on 29 July 2026)
Lengthy discussion open for more than a month; third relist August 30 with several new contributions since. There are several other open RFDs for similar , CA redirects whose outcome may or may not be influenced by the decision here. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by J947 at 00:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 08:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 49 days ago on 6 August 2026)
Long discussion of a pair of redirects with somewhat unusual history. Second relist September 2. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by voorts at 00:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 08:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
Relisted once with no new contributions since. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by voorts at 23:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 08:19, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 52 days ago on 3 August 2026)
Long discussion (complete with photos!) involving multiple templates. Relisted once on August 10 with minimal participation since. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by BD2412 at 00:33, 12 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 02:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 45 days ago on 10 August 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 19:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 43 days ago on 12 August 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 20:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 07:41, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- Nice. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 10:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- Well done, @Iseult. I was going to close it the same way, albeit with a slightly different framing for the reasoning. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 41 days ago on 14 August 2026)
Somewhat complex discussion that overlapped and partially duplicated the discussion at Talk:Aegae (Macedonia)#Requested move 30 June 2026, which was open for nearly three two months. The second page was tagged, then removed from the nomination as a duplicate, and then added back with little in the way of substantive contributions since the second part of the nomination was restored. This has been relisted three times with much less participation than the Talk:Aegae (Macedonia) RM. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, three months?! FaviFake (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's crazy as hell. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 21:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, now I get it, "Thanks!" is part of your signature! I always wondered why you always thanked people even in unusual situations. FaviFake (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, I guess you could interpret it that way. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- You're welcome! FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, like that! Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:19, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- You're welcome! FaviFake (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- I mean, I guess you could interpret it that way. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 22:06, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oh, now I get it, "Thanks!" is part of your signature! I always wondered why you always thanked people even in unusual situations. FaviFake (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Well, 49 days. So the first one was open just shy of two months. But it's 72 days from June 30 to now, so it is just now almost 2.5 months, which is what I meant to say. But yeah, the question of renaming Aegae (Macedonia) has been at RM in one form or another for the better part of 3 months at this point 😵💫 —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, that's crazy as hell. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 21:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Skarmory at 03:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 07:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
—Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- +1 Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 15:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 39 days ago on 16 August 2026)
Relisted twice with no additional participation. I would not necessarily object to a third relist per closer's discretion. There are several recent past RMs and potential future RMs for related articles that are or may be implicated in this decision. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by BD2412 at 23:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 05:18, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 28 days ago on 27 August 2026)
Minimal support. A snow close was suggested after 24 hours. I've got no time nor energy to spend on this, and as a result don't care how this is closed. Thanks. 11WB 💬 15:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- A summary by an experienced closer would be helpful. Dw31415 (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- In theory, yes. Nevertheless, I can't help wondering whether we are short of enough experienced closers. How about at least two inexperienced closers then? George Ho (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB: Closed I'm not the most experienced closer, but I've closed RfCs bigger and more controversial than this one, so I feel confident about my assessment here. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele (redt mit mir!) 00:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 49 days ago on 6 August 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 13:49, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by Robloxguest3 at 20:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 22:21, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 66 days ago on 20 July 2026)
With discussion slowing, some of the questions here have been closed already leaving a few that are ready to be closed. Staraction (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's been 30 days since this collection of RFCs opened, and there has been no !voting for over a week. I think everything is ready for closure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- Remaining: 1.1-1.5, 1.8, 3.4. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 16:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Only 1.5 remaining. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- Valereee is going to close it in a day or so unless someone objects to a no consensus close or does the close themselves, so it's pretty much all done. –Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 06:23, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- Only 1.5 remaining. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- Remaining: 1.1-1.5, 1.8, 3.4. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 16:33, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- All done. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 00:11, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 54 days ago on 1 August 2026)
Please review this discussion which has been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Epicgenius. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 12:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 20 days ago on 4 September 2026)
Been up for nine days and not a single yes vote, consensus is clear. New comments have become sporadic. TheBritinator (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed, TheBritinator. Keep up the Liechtenstein content, by the way! In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 18:03, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! TheBritinator (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 31 days ago on 24 August 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days so requires a closure or a relisting based on current WP:CONSENSUS. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- This discussion needs closure as it has been more than seven days since this was last relisted. The discussion should not be relisted again as it is clear that no or minimal responses will be received after this action as it was relisted twice and responses have not increased substantially. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Both Closed by Dclemens1971, Qwerty123M. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 04:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Both
Completed - (Initiated 31 days ago on 24 August 2026)
This discussion has been open for more than seven days so requires a closure or a relisting based on current WP:CONSENSUS. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- This discussion needs closure as it has been more than seven days since this was last relisted. The discussion should not be relisted again as it is clear that no or minimal responses will be received after this action as it was relisted twice and responses have not increased substantially. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 29 days ago on 26 August 2026)
This discussion has almost been open for seven days so requires closure or relisting soon. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- This discussion needs reviewing again for closure or relisting as it has been more than seven days since the discussion was last relisted. Qwerty123M (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by BilledMammal at 04:47, 17 September 2026 (UTC). In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:27, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 37 days ago on 18 August 2026)
Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 18:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor msk. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 22:22, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 31 days ago on 24 August 2026)
Move request has been open past the standard timeframe and consensus appears to change name to Premanand Maharaj. Please close the discussion and give verdict. Mohit Dokania (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Please close this as consensus to change name to Premanand Maharaj Mohit Dokania (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mohit Dokania You should place your own !vote in the discussion, not on this noticeboard. FaviFake (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean? An uninvolved administrator needs to close that and give verdict right? Mohit Dokania (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, most rename discussions are not closed by administrators. And your request for closure on this noticeboard should be neutrally worded. FaviFake (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- How to close it? The consensus is against me, How can I be unneutral to request the execution of that consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohit Dokania (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- No, most rename discussions are not closed by administrators. And your request for closure on this noticeboard should be neutrally worded. FaviFake (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean? An uninvolved administrator needs to close that and give verdict right? Mohit Dokania (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mohit Dokania You should place your own !vote in the discussion, not on this noticeboard. FaviFake (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- I've relisted it but someone else may still close it before the next 7 day period is elapsed. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
- Closed by editor ModernDayTrilobite. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:29, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 92 days ago on 24 June 2026)
No !votes for nearly a week, ripe for closing Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Completed - (Initiated 6 days ago on 18 September 2026)
There is a snowball's chance of hell of this template actually being deleted, consensus is overwhelmingly to Keep. Kinopiko in solidarity with Esperanza 07:57, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm involved but I'm pretty sure the discussion does not qualify for a WP:SNOW, especially due to the quality of some of the oppose arguments. FaviFake (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2026 (UTC)