Jump to content

Wikipedia:Closure requests

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jax 0677 (talk | contribs) at 02:21, 19 June 2020 (→‎Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Minneapolis_allows_police_use_of_neck_restraint.: archived). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Shortcuts

    The Requests for closure noticeboard is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications, such as when the discussion is about creating, abolishing or changing a policy or guideline.

    Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here.

    Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 13 May 2024); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.

    On average, it takes two or three weeks after the discussion ended to get a formal closure from an uninvolved editor. When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure.

    If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance.

    Please ensure that your request for closure is brief and neutrally worded, and also ensure that a link to the discussion itself is included as well. Be prepared to wait for someone to act on your request and do not use this board to continue the discussion in question.

    If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned.

    See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews.

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

    Because requests for closure made here are often those that are the most contentious, closing these discussions can be a significant responsibility. Closers should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion. All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that those editors may have.

    A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator. However, special considerations apply for articles for deletion and move discussions—see Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for details.

    To reduce editing conflicts and an undesirable duplication of effort when closing a discussion listed on this page, please append {{Closing}} or {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry here. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note. A request where a close is deemed unnecessary can be marked with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Close}}, {{Done}}, and {{Not done}}.

    Requests for closure

    See also: 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, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion § Old business

    Administrative discussions

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arsi786

    (Initiated 1469 days ago on 4 June 2020) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Arsi786 A topic ban was proposed too which has only seen support so far. Thread can be closed now. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 4 heading

    RfCs

    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' 3

    (Initiated 1532 days ago on 1 April 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus at the discussions at this page? No rush on this, since it won't be needed until next April, but it should be done thoroughly, since there are (in my view) a lot of non-policy based responses that need to be discounted. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've done one; there are several more discussions to close on that page, though.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done one, there are two more to go. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Closed RfC #4 (talk and project spaces) as clear consensus to ban pranks on Talk and Help Talk pages and rough consensus to not impose such a ban on Wikiprojects with further considerations. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Closed RfC #5 (joke XfD's) as no consensus to initiate the proposed restriction. This closes the last of this group of RfC's. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RFC: West Bank village articles

    (Initiated 1520 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#RFC: West Bank village articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Done, because I'm a glutton for punishment.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC on Infoboxes: Should there always be two candidates?

    (Initiated 1519 days ago on 14 April 2020) Would an editor assess consensus and close this RfC when appropriate?  Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#RfC_on_exceptions_to_WP:OCAWARD

    (Initiated 1510 days ago on 23 April 2020) Discussion stalled weeks ago. Please can an uninvolved admin close this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:External links#Request for comment on finding aids

    (Initiated 1510 days ago on 24 April 2020) Formal close needed SpinningSpark 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#RFC:_Should_the_date_or_the_event_start_the_article?

    (Initiated 1510 days ago on 24 April 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:2020_Nova_Scotia_attacks#RFC:_Should_the_date_or_the_event_start_the_article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#RfC: "... alleged that Biden ..."

    (Initiated 1509 days ago on 25 April 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 11#RfC: Should a separate section be included that lists people who have been told by Reade of her allegation, under a heading 'Corroborating statements', 'Witness statements', or similar?

    (Initiated 1503 days ago on 1 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Billie_Eilish#Infobox_image_RfC_3

    (Initiated 1499 days ago on 5 May 2020) Formal close needed. Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary

    (Initiated 1497 days ago on 7 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Remove "reliable historically" sentence from WP:RSPDM summary? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Donald Trump#RFC: First sentence

    (Initiated 1495 days ago on 8 May 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RFC: First sentence? — JFG talk 09:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation/Archive 10#RfC: Should we use the word "corroborate" to describe accounts that align with parts of the allegation?

    (Initiated 1495 days ago on 8 May 2020) Non-involved admin close requested; controversial topic. Archived RfC. petrarchan47คุก 23:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China#RfC on Chinese Foreign Ministry response to controversy regarding Africans in Guangzhou

    (Initiated 1492 days ago on 11 May 2020) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at the expired RfC on COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China? It is being contested by an editor. — MarkH21talk 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#RfC_on_Arbery's_criminal_history

    (Initiated 1489 days ago on 15 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#RfC_on_Arbery's_criminal_history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:NXT Championship#Requests for comment

    (Initiated 1486 days ago on 17 May 2020) 30 days lapsed, just need an uninvolved editor to formally close.LM2000 (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post

    (Initiated 1484 days ago on 20 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 296#RfC: PanAm Post? This RfC is not yet 30 days old, because it was subject to an accelerated schedule per WP:RSNRFC. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing of George Floyd#RFC on Floyd's criminal past

    (Initiated 1473 days ago on 31 May 2020) Formal close requested.—Bagumba (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#RfC:_Should_ethnicity_be_removed_from_the_lead?

    (Initiated 1470 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an administrator please assess the consensus for this RfC, because it seems to me nothing new can be said regarding the issues at hand. I dunno how much should I describe the discussion, but I'll say that a large percentage of responses are based on a lack of understanding of WP policy, guidelines (MOS:ETHNICITY) and also of some plain facts. Thank you, Notrium (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this was posted here in a non-neutral fashion, I'll counter that some of the responses seem to be by a banned editor (WP:SOCK) and that many of them seem to miss the point of WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RandomCanadian: so you "fix" the "non-neutrality" by accusing everybody who disagrees with you of socking? Notrium (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to continue the dispute. If you wish to make your comments go at the SPI, your current behaviour is just WP:BADGER everywhere... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Rfc on withdrawn candidates for the individual primary pages

    (Initiated 1466 days ago on 7 June 2020)

    •  Not done. Not a good faith RfC. Disruptive nomination unilaterally closed and delisted.—S Marshall T/C 14:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hatted sock disruption.—S Marshall T/C 14:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    So I am re-adding this request for a speedy close. I closed this after there were 8 votes against and only one for (the opener), and editors had suggested the editor put down the stick, noted it was invalid and bias, and requested it be withdrawn. The opener has refused to get the point and now reverted that close. Again, they demand the right to refuse to follow the previous consensus (and blatantly clear consensus already apparent in this one) while they run the clock on this RfC. This disruptive behaviour has to stop.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the close because it was by you, someone who has a clear bias and who participated in the Rfc. That’s the real disruptive behavior going on. Not only did you not write up a consensus but you are breaking the rules by closing the Rfc yourself instead of letting someone who’s unbiased and didn’t participate do it, as is customary. I just want the Rfc to play out fairly. Smith0124 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone can read my closing comments here and see you are lying. You need to respect the previous consensus, what people have told you in this RfC, and stop trying to game the system to leave your edits in place while a RfC runs. This is a clear abuse of process. You need to desist.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not lying when I say that you tried to close the Rfc which is against the rules. That’s not a lie it’s totally the truth. Smith0124 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did close it (as I write above). You are lying when you say there was no closing comments and it was just "hidden". It was there for anyone to read, and still would be if you hadn't removed it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that you didn’t write up a proper consensus which is true. You just took the opportunity to attack me personally again. It doesn’t matter that’s just a detail that you are nitpicking. There’s no need to drag on this discussion on. Smith0124 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is right there in the history for anyone to read bro:

    The previous RfC found consensus to include all candidates who receive either a delegate or 5% of the vote in the infobox of sub articles. Votes in this RfC are 8 for including withdrawn candidates, and 1 (the opener) opposed. There is a clear consensus to include withdrawn candidates in the infoboxes of the sub-pages if they receive either a delegate or 5% of the vote (the same standard that applies to those who have not withdrawn or suspended their campaigns).

    Did you read it?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I did. We are diverging from the point here. Point is you weren’t allowed to close it and that’s why I reverted it. Let’s just wait for formal closure instead of pointlessly argue. Smith0124 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or how about you do the right thing and withdraw your invalid RfC? You refuse to follow the previous RfC and are edit warring to prevent that consensus from being respected. You now have all eight people who have taken the time to answer your RfC tell you that the option you want is wrong. You have had some tell you it is an invalid RfC, it is bias, and that you are beating a dead horse. You are at peak WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Why are you incapable of respecting the previous consensus or putting down the damn stick?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will follow whatever the consensus of this Rfc is, there just has to be a full and unbiased consensus by someone uninvolved written in a formal closure. That’s how every Rfc works. And that’s where we should leave the discussion for now. The past is in the past. Smith0124 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe you. You haven't followed the last one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fine. I’ll just prove you wrong. Smith0124 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the chance. The way you are headed you might just end up with a block, and not have any choice but to follow it. You don't just get to follow consensus when you like it. You clearly didn't like the consensus out of the last RfC or what people have told you in this one, so you try to keep it open as long as you can. Shameful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#RfC on infobox inclusion criteria for candidates

    (Initiated 1466 days ago on 7 June 2020) Formal close requested due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 4 heading

    Deletion discussions

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 8 17 1 26
    TfD 0 0 2 0 2
    MfD 0 0 1 2 3
    FfD 0 0 2 1 3
    RfD 0 0 11 9 20
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 shootings of Oakland police officers

    (Initiated 1469 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 shootings of Oakland police officers? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done this AfD is only just over 7 days old, just let it get closed in the normal run of things. I see no reason to prioritise it above the others listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 4 that are patiently waiting their turn. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was subsequently  Done by Spartaz (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 4 heading

    Other types of closing requests

    Talk:Upper Caste#Proposed merge with Forward caste

    (Initiated 1948 days ago on 11 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the merge proposal arguments at Talk:Upper Caste#Proposed merge with Forward caste relating to a proposal to merge Upper Caste into Forward caste. Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List_of_Fast_N'_Loud_episodes#Split / Lynn Anderson discography

    (Initiated 1792 days ago on 16 July 2019) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes#Split? Also, on a side note, there is a complete lack of split/move/history attribution for Lynn Anderson discography, Lynn Anderson singles discography and Lynn Anderson albums discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jax 0677: The Lynn Anderson issues are nothing to do with any of the threads at Talk:List of Fast N' Loud episodes or its subject page. It's also nothing to do with this page, which is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia. Please do not put multiple unrelated requests under the same heading; this is not the first time that you have done this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of Shugo Chara! soundtracks#Merger proposal

    (Initiated 1538 days ago on 27 March 2020) It was difficult getting feedback on whether to merge three pages together due to repeating the same information. Would an experienced editor assist in closing the discussion? Thank you. lullabying (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 April#Perfect

    (Initiated 1511 days ago on 22 April 2020) – this is overdue for closure, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Coronavirus_recession#Merge_with_Economic_impact_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic

    (Initiated 1489 days ago on 14 May 2020) Please review the discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Canadian_French#Merger_proposal

    (Initiated 1486 days ago on 18 May 2020) Please review this discussion. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)

    (Initiated 1480 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_297#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Donald Trump#Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?

    (Initiated 1479 days ago on 25 May 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Mention of coronavirus in lead, Take 3? Take 4? Take 5?? — JFG talk 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#BRD_-_Officers'_previous_alleged_conduct

    (Initiated 1477 days ago on 26 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#BRD_-_Officers'_previous_alleged_conduct? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Header/main_Photo

    (Initiated 1474 days ago on 29 May 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Header/main_Photo? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Government of Victoria#Requested move 31 May 2020

    (Initiated 1473 days ago on 31 May 2020) Would an uninvolved experience editor please assess the RM consensus at Talk:Government of Victoria? Thank you! ItsPugle (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Black_versus_African_American

    (Initiated 1470 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Black_versus_African_American? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Merge proposal: 8'46"

    (Initiated 1470 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Merger_proposal? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Bias_in_reporting_the_racial_dynamics

    (Initiated 1470 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Bias_in_reporting_the_racial_dynamics? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Donald Trump#Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op

    (Initiated 1470 days ago on 3 June 2020) Would an experienced editor kindly assess consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Dispersion of protesters/Church Photo-op? — JFG talk 09:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#UK_police_official_statement

    (Initiated 1470 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#UK_police_official_statement? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:George_Floyd_protests#Reactions_to_the_George_Floyd_protests

    (Initiated 1469 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:George_Floyd_protests#Reactions_to_the_George_Floyd_protests? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Split_proposal:_Reactions_to_the_killing_of_George_Floyd

    (Initiated 1469 days ago on 3 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Split_proposal:_Reactions_to_the_killing_of_George_Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Floyd_had_Covid-19

    (Initiated 1469 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Floyd_had_Covid-19? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd

    (Initiated 1468 days ago on 4 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Proposed_merge_of_George_Floyd_into_Killing_of_George_Floyd? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done by El C (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#"Facedown"_or_"prone"?

    (Initiated 1467 days ago on 6 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#"Facedown"_or_"prone"?? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Deletion_of_RS_and_dragging_of_Floyd's_body.

    (Initiated 1467 days ago on 6 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Deletion_of_RS_and_dragging_of_Floyd's_body.? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Requested_move_7_June_2020

    (Initiated 1466 days ago on 7 June 2020) Would an experienced editor please review the RM? ItsPugle (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done Relisted by ~SS49~ {talk} at 11:00 (UTC) on 14 June 2020. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Killed_by_Derek_Chauvin

    (Initiated 1465 days ago on 8 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd/Archive 5#Killed_by_Derek_Chauvin? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Should_the_lede_have_8_minutes_and_46_seconds_or_almost_9_minutes?

    (Initiated 1465 days ago on 8 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#Should_the_lede_have_8_minutes_and_46_seconds_or_almost_9_minutes?? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#How_is_citing_the_MPD_Policy_&_Procedure_Manual_WP:OR

    (Initiated 1461 days ago on 12 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review Talk:Killing_of_George_Floyd#How_is_citing_the_MPD_Policy_&_Procedure_Manual_WP:OR? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 4 heading

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&oldid=963307209"