Talk:Maria Valtorta

message: Hello! I saw this page on WP:CR, and I was going to provide a close, but I'm actually not sure what, procedurally, happened here, and I was hoping some editors might clarify. Pinging the users who participated: .
(Full disclosure: I don't consider this to be participating, so I'd personally consider myself still eligible to close the discussion if that's what's called for.)
The discussion was placed under the RFCs section of WP:CR. But was there ever an RFC tag here? I looked at the edit history, and I was unable to find one. (If someone removed it, they did so while also adding a comment of their own, which seems unlikely.) I'd also note that this discussion started 7 days ago; RFCs generally run for 30 days unless discussion dies down or WP:SNOW is invoked. Even if this was an "other type of closing request" ... I'm not sure a close would be appropriate at this time. I've only superficially glanced at the !votes, but things seems fairly evenly split, numbers wise. Of course, consensus is not a vote, but I don't think I've seen an evenly split discussion closed after 7 days before. All this said, if everyone here wants a close, I'll provide one, but I want to make sure that is what everyone wants.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. A close at this point is likely premature. That said, I made some comments farther up the the talk page that would make me reluctant to do anything adminny here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Its been about a week, we don't appear to have consensus and its not exactly a pressing issue so I don't see the harm of letting it go another week to see if anyone new weighs in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

text: No, I don't believe there was ever an RFC tag here. The idea was to see if we could arrive at local consensus first, doing an informal consensus vote  among participants actively editing this article, and if that wasn't forthcoming, then do a formal RFC, opening it up to the broader community. Given this, how would you advise we proceed? Arkenstrone (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest—and again, I'm staying superficial here, but you all seem fairly far apart. I sort-of suspect an RFC might be forthcoming. If you were to do an rfc, I'd suggest  doing it in a new section, and I'd also advise everyone try to focus on saying their points fairly concisely and not worry to much about replies. (Not calling anyone out—RFCBEFOREs often are long! But I also know that editors who see large blocks of text are going to be really hesitant to participate. And you can always link up to this section for additional background.) But of course it's really up to you all! You could also wait a little longer to see if discussion amongst yourselves leads to a compromise option that can obtain consensus.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Ha, the image makes a compelling point!! But I'm gonna have to—narrowly, of course—say Horse Eye's Back and Ad Orientem are bit more persuasive. Maybe a Shia Labeauf meme would've gotten me there, but Nike just doesn't cut it anymore.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There never was an RfC, only a request of opinions. As one can see, the box indicating an RfC is not present anywhere on this talk page. Veverve (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedural questions

message: A few minor issues need to get fixed in the article.
The first item is the use of ASIN instead of ISBN. I think the Wiki protocol calls for ISBN at the moment, because Amazon has not purchased Wikimedia yet (give it 2 years) and little stores such as Barnes & Noble still use ISBN, rather than ASIN that is just Amazon.
The second item is about external links. At the moment there are none. But Wikipedia:External links says that "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." There are two foundations that represent the subject of this article  and  and they should be in the
external links. But I think we should avoid all blogs about the subject.
The third issue is that the article seems to suggest that she wrote "The Poem" first, then the Notebooks. That is not so, as can be seen by the dates on the sections of the book and the Notebooks. In fact she wrote them at the same time mostly from 1943-1947 but the Notebooks were published much later. And she wrote the Poem book out of order, e,g, the first section she wrote on Jan 16 1944  became section 52. The second section she wrote on Jan 21 1944 became section 235, etc. This needs careful sourcing so I would not jump to it yet, but it needs to be sourced and explained later.
The fourth issue is that there are many citation needed tags that can easily be fixed. I do not have time to do them all this week, but can try over the next month. However, help in fixing those will be appreciated. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: A few minor issues