Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
ended only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met. Shortcuts WP:RFCENDWP:RFCEND WP:RFCEXTENDWP:RFCEXTEND WP:RFCCLOSEWP:RFCCLOSE As an RfC is the solicitation...
Click to read more »the RfC, which he did without anyone else's consent in violation of WP:RFCEND. Since this content dispute is clearly not closed, the RfC should be reopened...
Click to read more »cited RFCEND (5). A bot removed the RfC tag and there was no discussion for two weeks. At this point anyone can close the RfC. As you cite RFCEND partially...
Click to read more »2017 (UTC) NOTE: I just now removed the "close" by a participant, per WP:RFCEND. Since there does not seem to be a real consensus in terms of bolded Yes/No...
Click to read more »open? Will some uninvolved editor (It doesn't have to be an admin, per WP:RFCEND.) please go ahead and close it? The bot's already removed the template days...
Click to read more »—usernamekiran (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Hm, as best as I can tell, per WP:RFCEND Venkat should have formally closed the discussion, but involved users are...
Click to read more »previous experience in the discussion, which is not allowed according to “WP:RFCEND”, where it is specified that only an “uninvolved editor” can formally close...
Click to read more »What you're quoting from WP:RFCEND is just one of several ways to close an RfC (uninvolved close), not the only way. RFCEND goes on to say: If the matter...
Click to read more »completely different topic (an RfC he discovered via WP:WIKIHOUNDING). WP:RFCEND says when outcomes are obvious and uncontroversial, there is no need for...
Click to read more »understanding about the purpose of RfCs which is to resolve content disputes. WP:RFCEND also outlines that you're not allowed to close RfCs because of a belief...
Click to read more »question. I have therefore applied WP:SNOWBALL, and closed it myself per WP:RFCEND: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's...
Click to read more »believe WP:RFCEND No. 5 to state. Could we please have some clarity on the situation? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC) WP:RFCEND: "As an...
Click to read more »is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because: According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments...
Click to read more »The consensus is not strictly determined by the number of votes. Per WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing...
Click to read more »is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because: According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments...
Click to read more »deletion reviews), so listing here, as it likely needs admin attention. WP:RFCEND says that an RFC may be closed by any uninvolved editor, but this RFC was...
Click to read more »page. In some cases, someone can vote on an RfC and still close it (see WP:RFCEND). Expecting "uninvolved" (in the ordinary word sense of the word, not the...
Click to read more »days or a few months depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, per WP:RFCEND, RfCs require a close no more than any discussion does. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06...
Click to read more »(talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC) I can only speak for myself, but I've...
Click to read more »January 2021 (UTC) @ProcrastinatingReader I closed the discussion per WP:RFCEND "the question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response...
Click to read more »February 2021 (UTC) I think this was a proper way to end the RFC per WP:RFCEND. This was nearly-unanimous, not a controversial outcome at all. Having an...
Click to read more »conversation. — nihlus kryik (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Please read WP:RFCEND. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Would some admin look...
Click to read more »an RfC due to bot-intervention; it's not a required time frame (see WP:RFCEND). Anyone (admin or user) can close the RfC (due to overwhelming consensus...
Click to read more »the RfC has no set amount of time that it needs to be kept open. Per WP:RFCEND, it can be closed early for many reasons. With the way the votes are going...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) Oh, and this nonsense about me quoting WP:CLOSE instead of WP:RFCEND in a discussion weeks ago was just that -- nonsense. An RfC that showed...
Click to read more »thoughts as the other editor to undo the close. The policy is here: WP:RFCEND, in particular “It can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor.", with...
Click to read more »think of adding this language to WP:SNOW? It's less visible place than WP:RFCEND and I think it's a good reflection of our practice that SNOWy discussions...
Click to read more »include in them. It's not really spelled out in WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CLOSE, WP:RFCEND, DGFA, WP:XFD, WP:DELPOL... how to write a closing statement doesn't appear...
Click to read more »in these discussions is to have a look at the little glossary inside WP:RFCEND, so that everyone who's talking about "ending" or "closing" is really talking...
Click to read more »- Epinoia (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) There is some text in WP:RFCEND in this regard. WP:Consensus should probably have something similar. This...
Click to read more »"close". Others can continue contributing or even re-add the rfc tag. WP:RFCEND has more info. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 19:14, 6 April 2022...
Click to read more »RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC) RGloucester, to quote from WP:RFCEND:-- If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is...
Click to read more »discussion? ADifferentMan (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Hi ADifferentMan. WP:RFCEND has guidance on when and how RfCs can end. Removing the tag and moving on...
Click to read more »knows when this is going to end, but if it's still going on 19 November, WP:RFCEND says that it will be bot-closed. Therefore, postponing the bot-closure until...
Click to read more »2018 (UTC) @Nomoskedasticity: Yes I do know better, because I've read WP:RFCEND. You may find the following useful: "The question may be withdrawn by the...
Click to read more »least a few others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC) WP:RFCEND: The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing...
Click to read more »are not good. I recommend that you close them. All three of them. See WP:RFCEND. Renat 19:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC) I agree here. More blanket RFCs for...
Click to read more »I don't have time to look now but a couple general words. First per WP:RFCEND no formal close might be necessary. Second, if a formal close is necessary...
Click to read more »sometime this afternoon (I launched it last month), as Wikipedia policy (WP:RFCEND, specifically #5) does allow any editor involved in a discussion to close...
Click to read more »discussion. I was relying on RFCEND. I'm concerned that elevating this page to guideline will then give it more weight than RFCEND. My concern would be addressed...
Click to read more »@Sdkb: A discussion that is going SNOW does not need a formal close per WP:RFCEND and it does not need to be listed here, per the instructions in the edit...
Click to read more »GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC) For future reference, per WP:RFCEND, the initiator of an RfC can withdraw the RfC early if the community response...
Click to read more »(UTC) If an editor starts an RfC, can that same editor close it, per WP:RFCEND? I have gotten some puzzling pushback (see 3 June activity). -- Oa01 (talk)...
Click to read more »19:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC) The RfC tag expired after 30 days per WP:RFCEND btw. CNC (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Done — Newslinger talk 21:58...
Click to read more »statement of what everyone else already knew. This is documented in WP:RFCEND. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2026 (UTC) "Panevėžys, Lithuania"...
Click to read more »decided to close despite being an involved editor per the guidelines in WP:RFCEND. I thought the WP:CONSENSUS undeniable in this case. I am admittedly a less...
Click to read more »815 days ago on 22 May 2024) I have ended this RFC a week early per WP:RFCEND. Because of a history of edit warring over this, I would like an uninvolved...
Click to read more »who participated in the RfC can't close it (despite the fourth limb of WP:RFCEND), so I just thought I'd query that point with you. I'm not trying to be...
Click to read more »There's no deadline to meet. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC) WP:RFCEND says "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) This is already a large and entangled mess. As a reminder,WP:RFCEND suggests "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that...
Click to read more »apply to the broadsheet published between 1964–1969 of the same name. WP:RFCEND states "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus...
Click to read more »discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. WP:RFCEND says that by default, Legobot will assign a 30-day period to an RfC and...
Click to read more »#4, it's actually not irrelevant. It's exactly what is described at WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...
Click to read more »anything that has been planned here. To respond to @WhatamIdoing, per WP:RFCEND, I would like the RfC to run for the full 30 days, a fortnight at a minimum...
Click to read more »participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. from WP:RFCEND and suggest we close and implement as such. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 22 September...
Click to read more »thus worth thinking about. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC) WP:RFCEND does note that not all RFCs are closed. It is not the only place in our...
Click to read more »timelines for any of this; but 1 month is always a good rule of thumb, per WP:RFCEND. --Jayron32 11:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC) WP:MERGE suggests a week, and as it...
Click to read more »(UTC) Since WP:RFCSIGN works, as do WP:RFCST, WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:RFCCAT, WP:RFCEND, and others, what's the problem? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2026...
Click to read more »Vanamonde but this is such a case. I think this this was closed too soon. WP:RFCEND says An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...
Click to read more »Dw31415 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC) not strictly a rule, but from WP:RFCEND An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...
Click to read more »That doesn't conform procedurally with the guidance of WP:WHENCLOSE or WP:RFCEND, but especially does not justify a finding of "strong consensus" when there...
Click to read more »the sources cited. ...we are quite some time away from concluding such WP:RFCEND states there is no required minimum or maximum time for an RFC. You disagree...
Click to read more »you mean? GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Legobot. From WP:RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus...
Click to read more »mistake, as I indicated in the AN discussion, based on a strict reading of WP:RFCEND which failed to take into account cultural norms regarding RfCs in contentious...
Click to read more »