Wikipedia:Closure requests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result. Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1185#LLM-generated_hoax_by_M_Waleed

• (Initiated 9 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)

Requests for comment

WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard#RFC about the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine and FRINGE

(Initiated 91 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[1] - 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)

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, [2] and support for psychotherapy as a first-line treatment. [3] 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 [4]) 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)

Asked AN to hopefully move it along. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes#RFC on Number of Visas

(Initiated 55 days ago on 10 March 2025) RFC tag expired. Last comment was a few days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 07:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on Unite the Right Comments

(Initiated 55 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)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC on the Political Practice and Rhetoric section

(Initiated 52 days ago on 14 March 2025) RfC tag expired two weeks after last !vote. Space4TCatHerder🖖 11:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

(Initiated 47 days ago on 19 March 2025) RFC on a ARBPIA related organisation -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Note for closer: Several accounts in this discussion were affected by recent ArbCom actions (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_misconduct_in_Palestine–Israel_topic_area_II) and not all comments by blocked editors have been marked as such. I strongly recommend installing a script to mark blocked users before diving into this. Toadspike [Talk] 13:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

This was now archived and de-archived, and is still in need of closure. There might be a reasonable argument for waiting for the outcome of the current motion as well, but I’m not sure what the best course of action is. FortunateSons (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC on date ranges in meteorological event titles

(Initiated 44 days ago on 22 March 2025) RFC expired, please close. 2600:387:15:5313:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Suicide methods#RfC: Link to Wikipedia's crisis resources in hatnotes

(Initiated 39 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)

Wikipedia talk: Citing sources#RFC on consistent styles and capitalization of titles

(Initiated 34 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)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles

(Initiated 31 days ago on 4 April 2025) Last top-level comment was over a week ago. RFC tag has expired. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Copts#RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent

(Initiated 30 days ago on 5 April 2025) No comments for more than 10 days, so I think this discussion has ended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC: Confusion on applying WP:GNG and WP:NSONG for album reviews

(Initiated 29 days ago on 5 April 2025) RFC discussion has slowed down for almost two weeks. Needs uninvoled editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson#RfC: Should Zeynep Tufekci's comments be removed from Reactions?

(Initiated 26 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)

Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris

(Initiated 19 days ago on 15 April 2025) No new comments for a week. Lazman321 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	1	0	1
TfD	0	3	21	0	24
MfD	0	0	6	0	6
FfD	0	5	7	0	12
RfD	0	0	27	0	27
AfD	0	0	5	0	5

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 5#Category:Deer and moose in popular culture

(Initiated 40 days ago on 26 March 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_9#Russia_hoax

(Initiated 38 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)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_April_18#Karmelo_Anthony

(Initiated 16 days ago on 18 April 2025) – Please review or relist this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:The Daily Wire#Proposed merge of Mr. Birchum into The Daily Wire

(Initiated 203 days ago on 14 October 2024) The Daily Wire and associated pages are part of a contentious topic area, but this has been discussed for half a year now and the debate should be closed. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 17:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Good faith and AI-generated comments#Should WP:Demonstrate good faith include mention of AI-generated comments?

(Initiated 123 days ago on 2 January 2025) This discussion has been going on since the turn of the new year and has seemingly died down. JJP_Master (she/they) 16:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal

(Initiated 87 days ago on 6 February 2025) Two users, who may be sockpuppets, were for the proposal, while three (including me) were against and have formed a consensus that the articles cover two different teams, and should be kept separate. No further discussion has taken place in two weeks, so I think this has run its course. — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It has now been six weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#Big Five game

(Initiated 76 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)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado

(Initiated 74 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)

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre#Requested move 6 March 2025

(Initiated 60 days ago on 6 March 2025) Last !vote was 24 days ago. --Firestar464 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025

(Initiated 54 days ago on 12 March 2025) A discussion on if and how to include reports that the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) considered a laboratory accident in China as the cause of the pandemic. 180.249.186.47 (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk:WarnerMedia#Requested Split 15 March 2025

(Initiated 51 days ago on 15 March 2025) As one of the main editors involved in this discussion, which has seen no activity in 12 days, I am requesting an uninvolved party to review and close this discussion so this can be formally settled. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Talk: 1925 tri-state tornado#Requested move 19 March 2025

(Initiated 46 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 (Initiated 74 days ago on 20 February 2025). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Requested move 20 March 2025

(Initiated 46 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) I should probably note now that any uninvolved that assess this come to a consensus not just based off the option choices, seeing as in the time since I posted this it’s gotten close vote wise. Right now, looking at the broader picture, there appears to be broad consensus taking shape to keep a date range in the title. (and if you’re trying to be specific, as I’m typing this, the date range choices combined are leading over the simple titles). I say this just so we don’t end up with a contested closure like the one that befell the Tri-State tornado page above it seems. Hope that helps! MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Concensus seems to have shifted to E/NC based on a vote yesterday. — EF5 14:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC) Actually no. The date range options (A B and C) combined outweigh the non-date range votes (D and E) combined by a lot (12-9). Saying it shifted to E would probably be improper consensus as the majority so far want to keep the date range and would pretty likely get contested like the Tri-State. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC) MarioProtIV, you can't close something as "ABC". It's either "A", "B", or "C". This isn't the place for further arguments on this anyways. — EF5 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC) I participated in this discussion, but will try to give a list of votes not clumped together in an unbiased way. A - 6 B - 3 C - 3 D - 3 E - 7 (see below) It's clear that there isn't consensus. On Mario's point of the clumped votes, I counted one user who supported the date ranges but didn't give a letter-based vote (@Tornado Tracker2:) and one user (can you ping IPs?) who opposed A through C but never voted in support of not having a date range. I also counted one user who opposed the refresh as a whole (@Fram:), but I'm not going to interpret their comment one way or another as that would be biased. Pinging both users because you obviously don't want to misinterpret a vote. — EF5 18:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC) But there is broader consensus to keep the date range. And out of the options that have those, A leads them. This isn’t biased, this is simply evaluating the options to see where consensus is. As stated before, choosing E would be biased bc there are more votes that call for a date range then for that single option alone. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC) MarioProtIV, A and E both have six votes, meaning that both are on the same level. If this discussion was just about a date range or not, why did you give five different options, just to later clump them together as some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE? As stated, I counted one IP who opposed A-C, and that comment is easy to find. — EF5 18:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC) There were 5 options because several other people suggested them in the earlier parts of the discussion. But as the vote continued I realized they were getting very close and was concerned that an improper consensus would be formed that would actually not represent what the majority of users voted for, in this case keeping a date range on the title. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC) ...so you were concerned that consensus would shift and as such decided to clump them together to avoid the "refresh" closing the way you hoped? Last comment here, but that's exactly what I thought the refresh was trying to eliminate. — EF5 18:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC) You are twisting my words here. I became concerned that it would close with a result that was not representative of the vote at large (more people want to keep the date range vs no), and would be contested by users afterward, seeing that E was a title that somewhat WP:UNDUE in nature given the main weather event (the tornado outbreak) that was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. At this point the discussion has shifted from the inclusion of the California tornado or not to trying to do away with the date range. I saw what happened with the whole Tri-State move saga, which is what I want to avoid. I did a refresh to consolidate discussion because people kept bringing up more options in subsequent talk sections and I was not wanting to have this all over the place. At this point it’s gotten so contentious I wonder if it’d just be better to close it as no consensus seeing where we’re at and just start a new RM for moving it to be "Tornado outbreak and dust storm of March 1x–1x, 2025" or something seeing how that is the primary issue right now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC) MarioProtIV, not to mention the non-neutral wording of the refresh, which states things like Brouggt up by some but opposed by some as well because even though it tries to associate the dust storm and fires and blizzard with it, I feel that gives them WP:UNDUE weight given how much more deadly and destructive the tornado outbreak was as well as that being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. and a vague title brought up by some that I feel is too broad. I mean, you used your personal opinion in the opening statement and as such compromised consensus. This is not how RMs (or whatever the heck you'd call this mess) are supposed to open. — EF5 15:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC) I said before it’d be better to close this as no consensus and start a new one instead because of how long and contentious this is. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC) I already gave my !vote before the irregular "refresh" partway through the RfC, but you can add me to the count for "E" (with "D" second choice: A, B and C don't even match the actual contents of the page, which just lists tornadoes of the 14th and 15th!). I don't think involved people are supposed to pre-indicate consensus anyway, that's a conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the voter, but since we are here anyway I left my comment as well. Fram (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC) Fair enough, I'll stop commenting. — EF5 18:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2025 Gaza Strip anti-Hamas protests#Requested move 29 March 2025

(Initiated 37 days ago on 29 March 2025) Last !vote four days ago. TarnishedPath^talk 08:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Responses_to_the_2020_Chinese_involvement_with_Hong_Kong_national_security_law#Requested_move_1_April_2025

(Initiated 34 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)

Talk:Gulf of Mexico#Moratorium discussion

(Initiated 13 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. TarnishedPath^talk 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)