Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

This forum is for discussion closers to discuss their evaluation of consensus in preparation for closing specific discussions, such as pending XfD, RM, or RfC closes. Any editor who intends to close a discussion, and has concerns about how consensus in that discussion should be assessed is welcome to initiate a discussion here.

Please note that this is not a place to discuss the merits of the underlying matter. It is solely for discussing whether a consensus can be discerned in a discussion, and how the discussion should be closed on the basis of a finding of consensus, or of an absence of consensus. Editors who are involved in discussions of the merits should generally avoid engaging in extensive discussion of how consensus in those discussions should be interpreted.

This is also not a venue for review of discussions that have already been closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Move review or Wikipedia:Deletion review. This forum is also not for requests that a discussion be closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally be Wikipedia:Closure requests.

I'm working on a close of Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 48#German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025. I'm fairly confident in my assessment but not in some of my wording:

Emphasis ("italics") added and will not be present when I paste this draft closure. The emphasized phrase is the biggest thing I'm unsure of. Would this phrase invite objections that WP:RS was raised to prefer scholarly sources, though that doesn't apply since much more participants agreed that the fact of BND—German intelligence agency—having an unpublished report doesn't equate to contradicting scientific consensus to the extent where MSM coverage is not enough and academic sources are needed? (Should I include this reasoning in the close?) If so, what is the best/a much better way to word this instead? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu, what existing guidelines could be "pointed to" to support an editor's judgment that a given amount+quality+type of coverage does not rise to WP:EXCEPTIONAL or WP:DUE? I don't think any exist, and if I'm correct about that, then "You didn't do something that is literally impossible to do" is probably not what you want to write in a closing summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that since there's no more guideline- or argument-based advantage to be weighed what's left is whether there's a supermajority. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be fair to say that we make decisions based on three things:

1. Rule compliance ("If you want to use DRN, you must follow these steps" or "All direct quotations require an inline citation")
2. Common-sense arguments/editorial judgement ("This is a good way to explain this complicated situation")
3. Supermajority votes (e.g., WP:RFA outcomes or decisions to create a new rule)

The words you italicize above mention #1 but your reply below indicates there were no instances of #2 in the discussion. Is that really true? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I felt like the two common sense arguments that oppose each other were of equal inherent strength: one was that widespread mainstream media coverage was enough to satisfy Exceptional and the other was that it wasn't enough. Thus, to evaluate which argument is stronger, the only thing that remains is which argument gained persuasive favor with the participants, thus which side has a supermajority. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also shy from instead saying "Since there are no guidelines indicating..." because that is an absolute. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Have you considered shortening the sentence? Lop off the first half, and say something like "Editors disagreed whether the breadth of mainstream media coverage satisfied..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So just "Editors disagreed whether the breadth of mainstream media coverage satisfied WP:Exceptional. There is consensus to include..." instead of that sentence? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that something along those lines would simplify the summary in a helpful way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Do you think I should include something in the middle of this sentence saying "and neither argument had a stronger PaG basis. Thus, numerical supermajority indicates..."? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

maybe you should it will make sense @WhatamIdoing 105.116.12.60 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed a Move request on Talk:2025_Nepalese_revolution#Requested_move_9_September_2025, but another editor brought up valid counterpoints on my talk page. I wanted to get a quick sanity check from other editors, in case my initial close was inaccurate.

I do think this was the most reasonable of the possible closes, but would appreciate feedback. Soni (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's pretty much undisputed in the discussion that reliable sources hardly ever use "revolution", so I wouldn't have moved it to that title. Much of the support for "revolution" was either raw unreasoned votes or personal opinions about what the event should be called, both of which need to be discounted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did account for the latter, but missed the former. I believe the simplest solution will be to undo my close, thank you for the quick feedback.

@Extraordinary Writ in the interest of not hitting a technical issue once more with the move, could you please fix/move the article and talk pages back? If you cant, I'll edit my Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests post to request the same. Soni (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Old CfD with no comments since September 3. The headline of the discussion is straightforward; there's no consensus on whether to do Options B or C. But what's unclear is what that "no consensus" means; normally no consensus means to keep the status quo ante, but here nobody is really satisfied with the status quo and everyone wants some kind of consistency. Despite "Option C" being named as an alias for "Keep" (somewhat confusingly), the status quo is a mix of all options, and I don't feel I can justify moving any titles that currently follow the Option B format to the Option C format when there wasn't a consensus to do so, that's stretching the idea of bartenders' closes past the breaking point. So what do others think? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough situation. Part of me thinks that your best move is to !vote yourself, and thereby let the next admin have an easier time declaring that there is a consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that relisting hasn't made consensus any clearer, I've had a look at WP:RMRELIST to see if I could garner any advice from it; and I think the idea of broadening the scope to which the discussion was publicized to garner more editor opinions would be the next step. Anderlaxe (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, first of all, what other editors said. But in the case that no one else comments on the proposal, I'd close as B over C. There's roughly equal support for both, with most of the editors feeling that either would be acceptable. Of the editors that strongly favoured C over B, there was just Just N., who gave no rationale, and NLeeuw, who argued with Οἶδα over whether it sounded more natural. There's no clear case that Foo-language Barian writers is more ambiguous (the -language fairly clearly doesn't refer to nationality) - as PARAKANYAA said C isn't really any clearer. Primarily it seems to boil down to taste. Kaffet i halsen also gave some reasonable arguments as to why B might be better than C.
But honestly I think closing as either B or C would be better than letting this discussion stay unclosed. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the discussion would also put option B as the most favored option, both in terms of volume of support and in strength of argument for support. BD2412 T 22:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by HouseBlaster as Option B. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to close [RfC: Omission of Russian SFSR from biographical infoboxes]. There have been no comments since July 31, but 1) my English isn't good enough 2) this is gonna be my first time closing a discussion. Thanks in advance! Thedarkknightli (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you don't need to notify us just to close something lol. Just reach out here if you need help!
Your link also doesn't work; to link to e.g. "RFC on framing of a sentence in article text" on Talk:Scientology, you'd have to do Talk:Scientology#RFC on framing of a sentence in article text. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. It should be WT:RUSSIA#RfC: Omission of Russian SFSR from biographical infoboxes. Thedarkknightli (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedarkknightli: how can we help? BD2412 T 18:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can I close the RfC with "No consensus for the proposal"? Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thedarkknightli: Yes, I would agree that the discussion can appropriately be closed as "no consensus for the proposal". Participants can always come up with a new proposal to discuss. BD2412 T 17:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an objection to my close at Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh#Closed RFC November 2025.

I think my analysis was correct but I should update my closure statement with the following:

While there is no local consensus on which sentence is better, there is consensus in the community to avoid duplication in the introduction. Editors should prefer “Phnom Phem fell” to “The Fall was the capture”.

I appreciate any insights or suggestions. The above was influenced by the essay Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means. Dw31415 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because only five people participated in that RFC, you could suggest re-opening it, and this time advertise it more heavily, specifically at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section.

The difficulty in this dispute is finding a path that is acceptable under two potentially conflicting MoS rules:

• MOS:REDUNDANCY, which says "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence" (which might be better fulfilled by option #1), and
• MOS:FIRST, which says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence" (and which would be better fulfilled by option #2).

It's possible that what's needed is a third option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, the debate has spilled over to Fall of Saigon as well. Cinderella157 made an articulate comment that I thought you might like to see. He explains that MOS:Redundancy is part of MOS:First so, while they might not be clear, they are not conflicting. Dw31415 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirdog, @BusterD, I would appreciate your council too. Dw31415 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left it closed with no consensus Dw31415 (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My closure did nothing to move things forward so I'm leaning toward reverting it. The discussion has spilled over to Fall of Saigon. Alternatively should there be a broader RfC somewhere that addresses all the "Fall of" pages? Dw31415 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert it. The usual reasons for doing so are that the closer is convinced by some of the arguments, or the closer is just disgusted by the behavior and has decided there are better things to do with their time. It is not necessary (or necessarily advisable) to say which one is applicable in any given case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance! Dw31415 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that maybe the reopened RfC could address generally the question of whether stating in the lede sentence that the "fall of" somewhere is "the capture" of the same place does or does not violate MOS:REDUNDANCY. Does MOS:FIRST's provision that the lede "define the subject" take precedence over REDUNDANCY here? Is "Fall of" sufficiently obscure terminology that it might be necessary to restate it inline as the "capture of"? Does an article's recognition as a GA forestall other editors besides the editor who developed it from making changes to the lede sentence regardless of whether they think that's in keeping with policy/MOS?

Obviously there are a lot of questions here ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my close. I think there was some guidance for Daniel to advertise it on MOS:Talk and some of the other "Fall of" pages, but I can't remember where I saw that and I hope that's not considered forum shopping. Dw31415 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a note to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and I see you have posted a neutral notice at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Fall of Phnom Penh has an RfC. Thank you for doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]