Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#RFC Russian Victory

{{redirect|WP:CR|text=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}}

{{redirect|WP:ANC|text=You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue}}

{{Noticeboard links | style = border: 2px ridge #CAE1FF; margin: 2px 0; | titlestyle = background-color: #AAD1FF; | groupstyle = background-color: #CAE1FF; }}

{{Archive basics

|archive = Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive %(counter)d

|counter = 37

|archiveheader = {{Aan}}

|maxsize = 256000

}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive

|format= %%i

|age=4368

|archivenow=

|header={{Aan}}

|headerlevel=3

|maxarchsize=256000

|minkeepthreads=0

|numberstart=16

}}{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=ClueBot III}}

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).

File:1ball.svg 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.

File:2ball.svg 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 Don't worry if the discussion has been archived; the closing editor can easily deal with that.

File:3 billiard ball.svg 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 {{tl|Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

File:4ball.svg

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.

Please append {{tlx|Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{tlx|Close}} or {{tlx|Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{tlx|Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{tlx|Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{tlx|Initiated}} template with {{para|done|yes}}.

To revert a closure, please remove {{para|done|yes}} and wrap your {{tlx|Done}} with strike through and Template:tlx

ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{tlx|Already done}}, {{tlx|Close}}, {{tlx|Done}} {{tlx|Not done}}, and {{tlx|Resolved}}.

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

Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

=[[WP:ANI#Newsjunkie Part 4]]=

{{initiated|00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}} 4th ANI discussion on Newsjunkie. No substantive comments for 4 days, no further evidence forthcoming. Closure would clarify whether report was warranted or spurious, and prevent further disruption if warranted or timesink if spurious. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm literally begging an admin to close this. wound theology ◈ 18:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, I would like it closed too regardless of the outcome. While I hope claims and counterclaims are investigated, mostly I'm just really confused at this point about what I or anybody is allowed to do anymore and could use some guidance. newsjunkie (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

=Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading=

Requests for comment

= [[Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard/Archive 1#RfC: Lead & reception prose established at DRN|Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#RfC: Lead & reception prose established at DRN]] =

{{initiated|24 January 2025 (UTC)}} Last comment made in February 2025 & it was moved to the archive by a bot on 14 March 2025. Article has been subject to a lot of edit warring & is back under a full lock. I think it would be helpful to have this formally closed (& temporarily restored to the talk page) as there is a discussion about if a RfC is needed for other aspects of the article including the lead. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Autism#RFC:_Focus_of_Autism_Article]] =

{{initiated|14:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC) }} Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus or close this as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Autism#RFC:_Lede_Section_of_Autism]] =

{{initiated|15:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC) }} Will an experienced uninvolved editor please determine whether there is a consensus or close this as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Removal of links to "animated" on animated film articles]] =

{{initiated|22:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)}} Since the RFC tag has expired and there's no discussion within the past two months, can an experienced uninvolved editor close this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

= [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor]] =

{{initiated|10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)}} 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%E2%80%93Israel_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)

::Agreed with @Toadspike Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 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)

::Just to note the motion was closed without being adopted, and has been archived -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Which motion? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The one linked directly above your comment (archived), closed with no action. :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::What does this mean? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There was a ton of engagement with this RfC, surely it has enough for a formal closure with recommendations. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::ActivelyDisinterested is just pointing out that a motion which would've (topic-)banned some editors who contributed to the RfC was closed without banning the aforementioned editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Archived again, please restore to the noticeboard if you close the discussion. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 476#RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Really needs a formal close soon and an update for the RfC list. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I haven't seen a close take this long in a while. Anything we can do? Iljhgtn (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

{{initiated|14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)}} RFC expired, please close. 2600:387:15:5313:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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

{{initiated|17:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)}} Last top-level comment was over a week ago. RFC tag has expired. Needs uninvolved editor to close this. Ladtrack (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Copts#RfC on statement asserting "direct" descent]] =

{{initiated|16:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)}} 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|17:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)}} 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:Iqrit#RfC]]=

RfC that followed a WP:ELN-discussion that followed a talk page discussion. FortunateSons (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Tetris#RfC on definition of Tetris]] =

{{initiated|19:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)}} No new comments for a week. Lazman321 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:Forspoken#RfC on Square Enix's comments on sales in the article's lead]]=

{{initiated|13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)|type=rfc}} – Last comment on 5 May 2025 (12 days ago) & RfC tag expired; also a related & broader non-RfC discussion was just started (15 May) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Should we mention publisher's statements in the lead paragraph?. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Superscript and subscript typography guideline]] =

{{Initiated|04:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)}} – Last comment from 27 April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Ramon_Casas#Request_for_Comment:_Subject_lead_label_Catalan_or_Spanish?]]=

{{Initiated|10:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}} - RfC was opened about a month ago and has stabilized. While the consensus of the RfC seems obvious, a closure with a definitive statement by a neutral editor would be useful. The labeling question pertains to a large number of articles with Catalan subjects. This and other similar RfCs and discussions will be used as a precedent for such articles. Bdushaw (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Template_talk:Current#RfC:_Condense_Template:Current]] =

{{initiated|11:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}} Expired RfC that could use a close from an uninvolved editor to progress to next steps. 05:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Screen Rant]] =

{{initiated|17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)}} No new comments in the last two weeks -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Debrief]] =

{{Initiated|07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)}} - There was a robust discussion but the last !vote was four days ago, and only two !votes in the last ten days. Seems like a fairly straightforward/easy close. Chetsford (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

= Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading =

Deletion discussions

= [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_25#Template:CompUnits]] =

{{initiated|16:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)|type=xfd}} * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_18#Flabbiness]] =

{{Initiated|23:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)|type=rfd}} – Please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

= Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading =

Merge proposals

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

{{initiated|03:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)|type=merge}} 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)

= [[Talk:Antisemitism in Australia#Merge proposal]] =

{{initiated|12:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)}} Discussion has been open since the end of January and has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 01:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:Denver Outlaws#Merger proposal]]=

{{initiated|23:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)}} 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)

It has now been eleven weeks without any further discussion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 10:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:2025 India–Pakistan conflict/Archives/ 1#Proposed merge of Operation Bunyanun Marsoos into 2025 India–Pakistan strikes]] =

These pages are attracting a lot of active chaotic editing, so if someone uninvolved could close this merger request soon, that would help. This is distinct from the ... standoff merger request that is now closed. Boud (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

= Place new discussions concerning merge proposals above this line using a level 3 heading =

Requested moves

=[[Talk:Doctor_Who_series_15#Requested_move_17_March_2025]]=

{{initiated|11:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)|type=rm}} Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:Acton_GO_Station#Requested_move_27_March_2025]] =

{{initiated|19:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC) |type=rm}} Open for 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship#Requested move 31 March 2025]]=

{{initiated|23:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)|type=rm}} Can you help to close the most recent discussion in Talk:2025 CONCACAF Women's U-17 Championship#Requested move 31 March 2025 ? I think the discussion has finished and the page now can change its name. Thank you!

I am not able to close by myself because i was the creator of it and someone else needs to close it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey1996ss (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Nathan Newman (writer)#Requested move 2 April 2025]] =

{{initiated|05:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)|type=rm}} Last comment 15 days ago.

The requested move discussion has been inactive for over two weeks and appears to be stale. Requesting a neutral closer to assess and formally close the discussion. 149.40.127.191 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

= [[Talk:Binary_Alignment_Map#Requested_move_9_April_2025]] =

{{initiated|03:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)|type=rm}} Last !comment 35 days ago.

Requesting closure by a neutral party of a contested technical move that currently has three comments and last comment was over a month ago. Thanks! WeWake (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:Wharekahika#Requested move 22 April 2025]]=

{{initiated|23:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)|type=Rm|done=}} It could be relisted with a notice at WPNZ if consensus is unclear but it should either be relisted or closed with a consensus. I am not sure if I am able to relist given I started the RM. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth#Requested move 18 May 2025]]=

{{Initiated|18:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)|type=Rm|done=}} Further discussion is unlikely to change the outcome.Legend of 14 (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

=[[Talk:International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association#Requested move 26 April 2025]]=

{{Initiated|14:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)|type=rm}} Closure is requested after the last comment on 26 April 2025. – WikiHelper232 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

= Place new discussions concerning RMs above this line using a level 3 heading =

Other types of closing requests

= [[Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 48#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025]] =

{{initiated|14:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)}} 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|9:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)}} 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)

= [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Logo change]] =

{{initiated|2:39, 28 May 2025}} Requesting formal closure since the milestone may get stale soon. Feel free to move to another section if this is not the right one. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)