Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 22
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 84#Price of medications (Initiated 3146 days ago on 15 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - jc37 09:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 5#RfC: Should information on the John Miller incident be included in the article? (Initiated 3143 days ago on 18 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the timely and contentious nature of the topic, I humbly request closure by an uninvolved administrator of this discussion about moving United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union to Brexit. (Initiated 3106 days ago on 24 June 2016) — JFG talk 05:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - jc37 07:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I am requesting a non-involved, experienced administrator to close this clarification request because it has potentially wiki-wide (or at least very broad) implications. It was opened 30 days ago and has received no further comment for the last 24 days. DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Copying my comment from here. I think this is a reasonable request for closure. I read the ANI discussion and found that several admins and editors believe that edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects are not covered by the topic ban. Based on the heated and accusatory comments by several of the involved editors in the discussion, it is clear that to avoid conflict and doubt DrChrissy should get a clear ruling from an uninvolved admin as to whether he can edit those articles.
WP:ANRFC is the correct place to request closure. A request at WP:AN or WP:ANI will be archived without action if an admin does not act on it in time. That no timely action has been taken does not mean DrChrissy should not get closure. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282#Standard offer : Drmicrocap (Initiated 3101 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (Or at least, closed...) - jc37 07:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There's currently an edit war between the RfC participants over whether to close or extend the RfC beyond 30 days. Can a non-involved, preferably Admin, editor intervene and resolve one way or the other? At the moment it's "closed" because I have not reverted the last revert, but I expect it will get re-opened, then re-closed, again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Formal closure by a neutral, uninvolved administrator under WP:CLOSE is respectfully requested, as neutrality is at issue, and the discussion has at times been contentious. We may expect the closing statement to be closely scrutinized. RfC launched 23 March 2016, most recent comment 1 May 2016. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Any objections to delisting this one? or does it still need an admin to resolve it? It's been sitting here for two months, and the RfC in question seems to be firmly consigned to the archive now. I'll delist if no objections. Dionysodorus (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think a close would be helpful to determine whether there is a consensus to add the material to the article. And if there is no consensus, a close could help participants frame a second RfC that addresses the concerns in the first RfC to hopefully gain consensus for a differently worded addition. But I will defer to the two editors who requested closure, Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) and HughD (talk · contribs), for their input. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I pulled it back from the archive; it's back at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. User:Springee, who had been unilaterally trying to close the RFC [1], sent it to the archives by changing the archive settings from 300d to 30d. I think it would have been more appropriate to wait for neutral third party to close the RFC, rather than set up a bot to archive it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Appeal of RevDel usage (Initiated 3158 days ago on 3 May 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Please close this RfC, which has run its course, and which I've just had to save from bot archival. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: (Initiated 3197 days ago on 25 March 2016). It's not all that long, as these things go. The consensus, on a policy, evidence, and reasoned-argument basis, is pretty easy to determine despite the lack of a snowball in either direction. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please, please, please! Close this ancient RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can close it if it "must" be closed, but as I just noted there, I don't think it's closeable in its current state. - jc37 05:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- I took a quick look myself, and it appear that the discussion
- Is not formatted as an actual WP:RFC, and so among other things never went onto the RfC lists
- Is not located at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, where it probably should be
- I surmise this is why jc37 is not wanting to close it. I have made the following counter-suggestion to jc37:
- Let's let the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles go into the archive.
- I'll open a new proper RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. I'll summarize the results of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles in a few paragraphs, along with the names and headcount of the participants, and a pointer to the permalink of the full discussion, for the edification of any new participants and the person closing this new, formal, correctly formatted and placed RfC when it expires.
- Does this sound reasonable to everyone, or is this too much work or duplication of effort or otherwise not a good solution? Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: I'm uninvolved, but that sounds good to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I took a quick look myself, and it appear that the discussion
done, it is all now at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles, so we can delete or archive this thread here. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I may be wrong, but {{done}} should probably be written for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Striking !votes (Initiated 3138 days ago on 23 May 2016)? See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RFC: when is striking !votes in RFAs OK?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jc37. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Credible claim of significance#RfC: Should this essay become a guideline? (Initiated 3121 days ago on 9 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC) {{done}}—S Marshall T/C 19:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Can an experienced editor help assess the consensus at the above page (Initiated 3111 days ago on 19 June 2016)? A simple number count indicates "include" is favoured, but some editors give vastly different rationales even if they arrive at the same conclusion, such that I am not sure what should be done. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) {{done}}—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:President of Brazil#Rfc: Rousseff or Temer (Initiated 3117 days ago on 13 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129#WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns (Initiated 3112 days ago on 18 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Douglas MacArthur#RfC: Should the file for the infobox picture be changed? (Initiated 3124 days ago on 6 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
All four "regular" RfD admins have chimed in on this one, so it'll likely sit in the backlogs for a while unless an uninvolved admin attends to it soon. (Initiated 3121 days ago on 9 June 2016) -- Tavix (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- Update: Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 6#Jeopardisers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Thryduulf. Deryck C. 14:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Isaac Barrow#Allegations by Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Initiated 3125 days ago on 5 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Some people want this closed as soon as possible, but I believe that an uninvolved but skilled person must determine the consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, now is not the time to close it, but I'll leave the request open, just in case. George Ho (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3119 days ago on 11 June 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- This has now been open for almost three weeks, we're getting a drip-feed of perhaps one or two comments per day after the initial 15 or 20 comments per day, could we now please assess this for closure. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- As the initiator of the RfC I endorse this request for closure. There are increasingly few comments being received and it's been a while since a new argument was presented. A formal close of this is needed as the are strong views both for and against. Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- This discussion appears to still be ongoing. Might as well at least wait the two more days for the full 30 for the rfc. - jc37 08:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Jc37 well here we are, would you, or someone else, now please close this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Anyone here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: You know you will not get a faster close just by insisting, right? This place is usually severely backlogged (though User:Jc37, praised be them, eradicated the backlog recently, it will probably rear its ugly head again), and your RfC is (1) complex, (2) important, and (3) attracted a lot of answers. You might think that (2) should accelerate the close, but actually it will not, because the closer will need greater care to make sure nothing was missed and the closing statement is adequate.
- I close a few of these, and I go for the low-hanging fruit - small RfCs on individual articles where the consensus is fairly obvious. In all likelihood I am the closer with the weakest Wiki-reputation (non-admin, and a relatively low edit count) here, but I suspect there are others with the same sorting key. Just to put things in perspective, the
{{Initiated}}template turns red after 60 days. TigraanClick here to contact me 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)- Yes, the initial request was made about two weeks ago, nothing has changed since then, a few more comments but nothing substantive. If someone says they'll leave it until the 30 days are up, I'd expect them to honour that. Of course, I understand that other things (e.g. real life) take priority, but I also note that Jc37 has edited since the time I pinged him/her so it's a bit of a shame that we're where we are. Never mind the template turning red, let's just get this out of the way please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I had planned on coming back to this if no one else had, but needless to say, even after a few read throughs so far, this isn't a quick close by any means. If no one else has by then, I'll likely have more time later tonight/overnight. - jc37 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, no-one had suggested that it would be a quick decision, but thankfully we have someone prepared to step up right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great. : ) - jc37 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, no-one had suggested that it would be a quick decision, but thankfully we have someone prepared to step up right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Four days passed; Martin hasn't done the actual closure yet. Shall we need another volunteer not involved in ITN and its sub-functions? George Ho (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Four whole days? Wow. That's like, forever. Why is actual italicised? Shall we need to be a bit patient, or is this somehow urgent? Begoon talk 14:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- This one appears to have been done by User:Gnangarra, so {{Done}} for the bot. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Led Zeppelin#RfC on plagiarism issue (Initiated 3113 days ago on 17 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by John Cline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usage 2 (Initiated 3124 days ago on 6 June 2016)? Please consider Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)#RfC: Article/character name and usage in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter (Initiated 3196 days ago on 26 March 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Alfred North Whitehead/Archive 1#way, way, WAY too many "influenced" (Initiated 3120 days ago on 10 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Dionysodorus (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to mark this as "no closure needed". An IP user has pruned the list in the last few weeks. Deryck C. 12:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but no harm in closing it anyway, in case someone decides to edit war them all back in again. Dionysodorus (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to mark this as "no closure needed". An IP user has pruned the list in the last few weeks. Deryck C. 12:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion needs an experienced closer to assess consensus. If you're not familiar with how to implement TfD closures, feel free to either ask me first or make the close and ping me to take care of any maintenance work it creates. ~ Rob13Talk 20:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Already {{done}}. Deryck C. 10:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There has been a discussion about whether the controversy merits its own article, should be merged into 2016 Republican National Convention, or put back into Melania Trump (from whence it was spun out). The discussion has only been going on for four days, but several participants have been bold and merged the content, saying they see a consensus other editors do not see. Would appreciate an outsider's eyes. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. The bold attempt to redirect was a bit cowboy, but given the locus of the discussion I think no plausible outcome will retain the article. Deryck C. 09:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines/Archive 1#RfC: Is being a finalist in a major championship notable for school articles? (Initiated 3118 days ago on 12 June 2016)? When considering the collapsed "Arguments from prior discussions" section, the discussion's consensus is less clear than just looking at the "Support (yes, it is/may be notable)" and "Oppose (no, it is not notable)" sections. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Southern Levant#RFC on Wording of Lede Paragraph (Initiated 3116 days ago on 14 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Natalie Portman#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? (Initiated 3121 days ago on 9 June 2016)? Please consider Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please evaluate the consensus and close this discussion regarding creating a new temporary CSD criterion? Thank you. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/CXT#Closing. Mz7 (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 21#FREAKAZOiD (Initiated 3079 days ago on 21 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This RfC needs a closure. It was started on 20 June, and the consensus (if any) is unclear. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Photography#Request for comment: Which of the two following two photos would be best to use as a portrait? (Initiated 3110 days ago on 20 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Karen Stollznow#Sexual Harassment section Rfc (Initiated 3102 days ago on 28 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports (Initiated 3100 days ago on 30 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced this discussion will benefit from formal closure at this stage. If it becomes more of a straw poll with a small, finite number of well-defined options, then an RfC-style closure would be appropriate. Deryck C. 14:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} for the bot. I will bring this back later if it has more participation. It is already "a straw poll with a small, finite number of well-defined options" though there is little participation; see for example Proposal 2 and Proposal 3. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Request for comment: What is the correct capitalization for the article about ARM "big.LITTLE"? (Initiated 3108 days ago on 22 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced this needs formal closure. Deryck C. 14:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed as "There is no consensus in this RfC to rename ARM big.LITTLE to ARM Big.Little. I recommend opening a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at Talk:ARM big.LITTLE if any editors want to further discuss the name further."
This RfC is equivalent to a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion. All WP:RM discussions are closed, as should this article renaming RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed as "There is no consensus in this RfC to rename ARM big.LITTLE to ARM Big.Little. I recommend opening a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion at Talk:ARM big.LITTLE if any editors want to further discuss the name further."
(Initiated 3097 days ago on 3 July 2016) This is a rather heated topic which seems to have exhausted itself and a non-involved neutral admin is required to assess whether or not there is consensus (and what that consensus is) and possible next steps for resolution. Electoralist (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- This RFC has been closed by User:Deryck Chan. Thanks. Electoralist (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whoa, hold on a second. I thought WP:Consensus was *not* supposed to be about minority/majority votes, but finding common grounds for agreement and (if that doesn't work) the strength of arguments. I find this outcome to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated policies, and with all relevant facts.ChronoFrog (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michel Foucault#RfC:Should Foucault be tagged with LGBT and Gay categories? (Initiated 3108 days ago on 22 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This RfC expired some days ago and needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC) {{done}} by Sigma. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have withdrawn my deletion request for this article since new evidence has come to my attention. Please close as keep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RFC on Discogs.com (Initiated 3107 days ago on 23 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup#Merge proposed (Initiated 3105 days ago on 25 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry#RfC on article scope (Initiated 3099 days ago on 1 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This RfC concerning a new usergroup has expired. May an uninvolved editor please assess and close the discussion? (Initiated 3092 days ago on 8 July 2016) Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Four votes (3 to 1 in favor of the change), 30 days passed, RfC expired... closure? consensus determined? Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (formal closure wasn't strictly necessary, but I closed it anyway.) Tazerdadog (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
There are about 60 open AfDs in the backlog, some dating back to over two weeks. I guess admins are humans too who need summer vacation ;) but some cleanup would be nice. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The backlog is back to acceptable levels now, thanks! --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Marking as {{done}} - the backlog is zero (discussions marked "old" by the AfD bot - over 8 days old) as of now! Deryck C. 20:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Move Review
Wikipedia:Move_review#2016_July has three cases that have gone for more than a week, and should be closed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The RFC template just expired after hitting 30 days. Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed protection policy? (Initiated 3096 days ago on 4 July 2016) Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Poking people on this - this needs to be closed up. I'd do it, but I've already closed a significant discussion on the topic.Tazerdadog (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'll take this if it's still open at about 9am UTC tomorrow. It's a couple of hours' reading and digesting that I would have done today if I'd seen it earlier but I won't have time to do it justice before bed today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Indian massacres#RrC: Refer to Indian Holocaust in lede, or not? (Initiated 3112 days ago on 18 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Σ. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
A short discussion that has run over a month. As the person who started the discussion it would probably be inappropriate if I closed it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
RfC expired but was never closed.LM2000 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers#Request for Comment (Initiated 3089 days ago on 11 July 2016)? The opening poster wrote: "Is there sufficient evidence supported by reliable sources to add Ethnic hatred or Race hatred (both link to the same article) to the Motive section of the Info Box?" Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources (Initiated 3086 days ago on 14 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Amendment request of DYK participation restrictions
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 127#LavaBaron's restrictions - review has been running for a week and new comments have petered out. It requires an uninvolved editor's pair of eyes to close the discussion and announce the outcome. Deryck C. 15:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Closed Hobit (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Marking as {{done}} for bot purposes. Deryck C. 13:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The 30 days runs in about 24 hours. I'm asking for 3 closers, until we get 3 or until a week goes by. If we get 3, great. If we get 1 or 2, I'll probably ask them a couple of questions. If we get 2, I'll probably offer to join them. - Dank (push to talk) 17:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of templating: (Initiated 3136 days ago on 25 May 2016). Dank, your request for multiple closers sounds weird (how are they going to coordinate, if the point is precisely that they are relatively independent from each other?) but well, whatever works. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Tigraan and Dank: The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, it seems reasonable to me but I just asked about the "how". I live and learn. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Tigraan and Dank: The request doesn't seem weird to me – when performed, it increases the credibility of the closure. I think how it works is a group of designated closers (usually admins or bureaucrats) discuss how the discussion should be closed either on-wiki or off-wiki (through email or IRC) and then collaborate on a closing statement that they all sign. Such a system isn't unprecedented, especially for particularly contentious discussions: see Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 (closed by 4 administrators) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion. Mz7 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, no replies for a week, I'm out. Unwatching. - Dank (push to talk) 10:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Replying in the same-named section at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- As no one else came forward to form a committee, I've {{close}} this myself. Mdann52 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry but I have reopened it. Thanks for trying but this was contentious and there was significant opinion that it is best left for an admin (or a team as suggested above). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can try to close this if wanted, but the reason I skipped over it my first time through this page is that I've stated in several places that my understanding of the current (prior to whatever this discussion's result is) consensus is that nac cannot close discussions as delete due to not being able to implement a delete close. I believe I've been in at least one discussion where I supported that status quo. I'm not "involved" in this discussion, and I don't think I would be biased in the close, but I wanted to express that disclaimer first before offering to close this. Please feel free to let me know what you think. If you'd like my help, I'm happy to, if you'd prefer not, I'm fine with that too : ) - jc37 21:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) - While this is all still true, still, I think I'll recuse myself in this case. - jc37 01:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- My two cents is that the idea of a 3-person jury for closing very important and/or difficult discussions is a good idea. I've done it myself and it worked. Rather than any discussion or coordination being needed, you pick three people at random (one of them can be yourself I guess), contact them to see if they will do it, set a 24-hour or so window, and each "votes" their decision with a couple paragraphs or whatever showing their reasoning. Then as soon as all three have voted their decision you just total the votes, its 2-1 or 3-0, and you make the actual close which is just the technical counting of the votes of the three closers.
- I would say it would be better to set this up ahead of time though. But it could still be done now, right now, and its good to do new things especially if they're sensible and have been shown to be workable, and fortune favors the brave. Go for it. (I'm not saying the committee/discussion way isn't also a good way maybe.) (Also for a question like this it would be a very good idea IMO to include at least one non-admin on the "jury", for both good procedural and political reasons.)Herostratus (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Just noting that I'm willing to close almost any discussion that I'm not involved in (I'm involved in this one) as part of one of these committees. Anyone can ping me on my talk page to ask me to participate. Perhaps we should have a sign-up page somewhere to randomly select from? Tazerdadog (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It just occurs to me to point out that we have three people here - User:Jc37, User:Herostratus, and User:Tazerdadog - who would apparently be willing to constitute a jury. So these three people (one admin and two non-admins) could go ahead and do that. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)- Not me, I voted. Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, and Tazerdadog said the same actually - I misread you both. So ignore what I just said please. Dionysodorus (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not me, I voted. Herostratus (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- @Herostratus: FWIW I'm willing to take part in a 3-person jury as an uninvolved non-admin. I'm an active page mover and have a reasonable reputation for working towards consensus in the frame of policy. I've had the opportunity to adjudicate contentious situations before, including digesting walls of text and giving due weight to succinct as well as verbose arguments, and I came to defend my own rationales for closing such debates in a way that obviously couldn't please everyone but was deemed fair. Ping me if/when the process gets going. — JFG talk 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK well I don't know... as far as I'm concerned you'd be hired. I consider myself fair minded and there's no real reason why I couldn't "hire" two more closers, and then close (but not decide) the discussion with {{Archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}, then as soon as all three closers have made their decision (or even when two have, if they've decided the same way) do the actual close just based on their decision.
- @Herostratus: FWIW I'm willing to take part in a 3-person jury as an uninvolved non-admin. I'm an active page mover and have a reasonable reputation for working towards consensus in the frame of policy. I've had the opportunity to adjudicate contentious situations before, including digesting walls of text and giving due weight to succinct as well as verbose arguments, and I came to defend my own rationales for closing such debates in a way that obviously couldn't please everyone but was deemed fair. Ping me if/when the process gets going. — JFG talk 14:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- However, all this is going to seem new and odd enough without having someone who's voted being involved in any way shape or form. People will talk. So c'mon, let's have some uninvolved admin step forward here and "hire" JFG and two other people and do as I've outlined. For that person there won'd be much hard work. How to "hire" the 3 closers is up to them... I an envisioning generating some random numbers and applying to the lists of editors or admins, or just closing your eyes and pointing, or something like that... or maybe two more stalwarts will apply as JFG here did... let's do it! I'm sorry I feel I have to disqualify myself from the entire process, purely for the politics of the optics. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Link to closure review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive282#Review of Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Allow non-admin delete closures?. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Surprised this is still open. Am happy to volunteer as a closer of this debate, alongside anyone else who wants to take part. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- Poking people on this - this needs to be closed. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Ivanvector (talk · contribs) has made a closing statement at the RfC. As the two other editors who have volunteered to close the RfC, JFG (talk · contribs) and Euryalus (talk · contribs) would you also make your close statements at the RfC? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me, I was not aware this was listed here. If an admin or a committee or Jimbo or whatever want to review my close, I don't object. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} — JFG talk 09:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy#RfC on inclusion of meeting between AG and Bill Clinton (Initiated 3096 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is a non-admin closure appropriate here? It's hardly a SNOW case, and I raised some concerns about the legitimacy of the RfC to begin with. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- NAC seems fine to me here. It was fundamentally a content dispute, requiring no admin tools to implement the decision. If you have concerns with the substance of the close, you are free to start a thread to challenge the closure. Non-admins can close threads that would not qualify for SNOW. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- Is a non-admin closure appropriate here? It's hardly a SNOW case, and I raised some concerns about the legitimacy of the RfC to begin with. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Deletion review
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 2 is still open and the regular DRV closers have all participated. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} (not by me...) Hobit (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Can an editor or admin assess this RfC for a WP:SNOW close? LavaBaron (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Not snowball though. Deryck C. 17:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, kindly, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Isaidnoway challenged it on the grounds that it's been less than 24 hours. I didn't check how long the RfC had been open when I closed it, but since Isaidnoway asked, I think I should leave it open for at least a few days before trying to close it again. To be honest, I don't think a cross-posted RfC was the right format for this discussion... Deryck C. 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, seems reasonable. Thanks, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Actually {{done}} this time. Deryck C. 13:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, seems reasonable. Thanks, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Isaidnoway challenged it on the grounds that it's been less than 24 hours. I didn't check how long the RfC had been open when I closed it, but since Isaidnoway asked, I think I should leave it open for at least a few days before trying to close it again. To be honest, I don't think a cross-posted RfC was the right format for this discussion... Deryck C. 18:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, kindly, Deryck. LavaBaron (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Needs closure from an uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Erpert: MBisanz decided to relist it. Come back next week. Marking as {{not done}} for bot Deryck C. 13:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:12 Years a Slave (film)#RfC on White savior narrative in film wikilink (Initiated 3092 days ago on 8 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:White savior narrative in film#Inclusion of The Matrix (Initiated 3087 days ago on 13 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This may be the wrong place for such a post, but there are a huge number of unopposed CFDS nominations dating back to August 6. Pppery (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} By Tavix a while ago. Pppery (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#RfC: "Sir" (Initiated 3110 days ago on 20 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC) {{Done}}188.174.89.135 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Proposed draftspace deletion (Initiated 3088 days ago on 12 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Has been open for almost a month; needs assessment from an uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Request a none involved admin look at closing this RFC and (if they can) decipher the mess as to what it actually concluded. WCMemail 21:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Kudpung. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Any brave soul want to take a wack at this? It's been open about 6 weeks. I don't think it's urgent, but could use a look over. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh well.(Initiated 3130 days ago on 31 May 2016)188.174.88.23 (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Snuge purveyor (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Snuge purveyor (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rock
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#RfC: Changing to genre for Taylor Swift – “Red” to Pop • country• rock (Initiated 3101 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Canvassing concerns were raised at Talk:Red (Taylor Swift album)#Canvassing effort by Bjork138. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Margaret Hamilton (scientist)#Request for Comment (Initiated 3085 days ago on 15 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
There is now a pretty significant backlog building at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Oddly, some of these haven't even been relisted (which means even non-Admins aren't looking at them...), but have been sitting around for 2 weeks or more. Also, oddly, some of the ones that I just looked at are WP:SNOW results, so I'm not sure why they haven't been moved, except that I guess an Admin hasn't looked at them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – looks like the backlog was finally whittled down to a manageable non-backlog... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Has currently been open for a full month. (Initiated 3066 days ago on 3 August 2016) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Seraphimblade. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#RfC on Infobox (Initiated 3109 days ago on 21 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Singla#RFC: Is Singla a Jatt caste? (Initiated 3078 days ago on 22 July 2016)? There is an edit war over the outcome of the RfC regarding whether the page is a disambiguation page. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rajka Baković#Request for comments (Initiated 3096 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Earthquake prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues (Initiated 3084 days ago on 16 July 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Earthquake prediction#Non-Participation, where a participant expressed a desire for closure: "Is that a possible outcome: no closure at all, or a 'no consensus' close to the RFC, after all this discussion? Sigh... I was at least hoping that a close might decide whether 'natural time' and the VAN prediction of 2008 can be mentioned in the article." Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Request for Comment: Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles (Initiated 3088 days ago on 12 July 2016)? The previous RfC was at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 129#Wikipedia:Disambiguation and inherently ambiguous titles. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion#RfC, Name of the article (Initiated 3102 days ago on 28 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Already done by User:Σ. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Novak Djokovic#RfC Novak's mother? (Initiated 3084 days ago on 16 July 2016) Vanjagenije (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I was just here to request this to see that it has already been done. I endorse this request. 89.164.194.127 (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions#Requests for comment (Initiated 3079 days ago on 21 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} for the bot. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
This was relisted a week ago but there still is no consensus. For at least three reasons I can't close it as such myself (lol), so I request an uninvolved admin to do the honors. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Ymblanter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who (series 9)#Another RfC: Episode Groupings (Initiated 3101 days ago on 29 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{not done}} It seems to be an unstructured airing of grievances, now dormant, with nothing to be gained brining it back from automated archive. Rhoark (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rolfing/Archive 4#NPOV - Request for Comments - Contentious Labels - "Quackery" "Pseudoscience" Opinions Stated as Fact (Initiated 3093 days ago on 7 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Guy/JzG. Rhoark (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Assault rifle#False, unsourced claim, and generally the article's a mess of Apocrypha and bias (Initiated 3090 days ago on 10 July 2016)? My RfC close of this discussion was contested. I considered this an uncontroversial, "consensus is clear" close, which has turned out to be an incorrect assumption so I have undone my close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- If we could hurry this one along that would be nice.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Rhoark (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Monosodium glutamate#RFC (Initiated 3081 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}}
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive283#Request to appeal unblock conditions (voluntary topic ban) (Initiated 3048 days ago on 21 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
An outdated merger discussion from April 2016.GreyShark (dibra) 14:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC) {{done}} AIRcorn (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:B. Alan Wallace#Request for comment (Initiated 3081 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
{{done}} AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor, preferably someone who doesn't have strong feelings for or against Donald Trump (does such a person exist?), please assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements? Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Not yet 30 days old (started 25 August 2016) and comments are still incoming. Sandstein 20:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
An uninvolved admin is needed to close this RfC, which was initiated over a month ago. (Initiated 3067 days ago on 2 August 2016) Neutralitytalk 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC on removal of hidden comment
Closure by an uninvolved admin is needed at Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iraq War#RFC: What is the subject of this article? (Initiated 3078 days ago on 22 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) {{done}} AIRcorn (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Geodakyan's evolutionary theory of sex#RFC on relevance and context (Initiated 3076 days ago on 24 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Tazerdadaog. Rhoark (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Will an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Unseen character#Request For Comments - examples that Wikipedia editors don't believe qualify? (This issue has been contentious, and an administrative close might be desirable.) (Initiated 3060 days ago on 9 August 2016) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dennis Brown. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Extraterrestrial atmosphere#Confusing article titles (Initiated 3094 days ago on 6 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
RevDel amendment
This proposal for amendment of the RevDel guidelines has been open for more than a month. Currently 100% of !votes are in favor of adopting the amendment with a thorough discussion among a variety of other editors who have chosen not to register any opposition. Despite a low number of !votes, the participation of a large number of editors without registered objection seems to indicate no objection to adoption of the amendment. Could it please be evaluated for closure? LavaBaron (talk) 05:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've updated the link to point to Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#RfC on Amendment of Block Log Rev Del Policy instead of Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: Unfortunately, I see this as a very significant change to the revision deletion policy (since it would change longstanding practice regarding block logs), requiring a much broader consensus than the support of the proposer. It's better to assume that people haven't yet seen the proposal, rather than assuming that nobody will object to it. I recommend making neutral notes to the proposal on central community noticeboards like T:CENT, WP:VPP, and perhaps WP:AN to gather more input (within the bounds of WP:CANVASS, of course). As an uninvolved editor, if I were to close the discussion right now, it would regrettably have to be "no consensus". Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} (Initiated 3092 days ago on 8 July 2016) Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gustav Holst#Infobox? (Initiated 3068 days ago on 1 August 2016)? Please consider Talk:Gustav Holst#RfC on removal of hidden comment in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)#Should Japanese names of subjects without Wikipedia articles be footnoted? (Initiated 3084 days ago on 16 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Ajax (play)#Meaning of "immature work" (Initiated 3063 days ago on 6 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Republic of China general election, 2016#Should we change the titles of those election articles from "Republic of China xxx elections" to "Taiwanese xxx elections"? (Initiated 3058 days ago on 11 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 133#RFC: should galleries use mode=packed by default? (Initiated 3106 days ago on 24 June 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Give it some more time. It seems that technical improvements are in the pipeline, which may affect the options available. Deryck C. 14:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), I've fixed the initiated date from 19 July 2016 to 24 June 2016. I listed it here because it had been archived. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies. It got archived already... I'm not sure that discussion has a closure action as it is. You can slap an {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} onto it if you feel necessary? Deryck C. 09:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Marking as not done for the bot for now, because I'm not sure what there is to do. Deryck C. 23:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from
mode=traditionalby default tomode=packedby default. The proposal received much discussion from the community. An RfC close would determine whether the proposal was successful. If it is successful, then the technical change could be implemented, If it not successful, then a close would note that and possibly summarize points of agreement that could help frame future discussions. I've removed the not done tag. I have not closed the discussion myself because I would not be an objective closer for this subject. Cunard (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)- @Cunard: In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've unarchived the discussion and added my opinion. I agree with closing this after a few days. Cunard (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard: In that case would it make more sense to re-open the discussion (by moving it back to the main noticeboard) first, then close again after another few days? Deryck C. 17:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
- Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), why is there nothing to do? The proposal was to move galleries from
- {{done}} --Deryck C. 12:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The 30 day period has ended. Will an uninvolved editor please close the RfC and state their decision? --HamedH94 (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Reminder, it's been 47 days. --HamedH94 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Deryck C. 12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#user:Mathsci_not_respecting_.27in_use.27_template? 96.230.117.77 (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin close this before it is archived? Bottom section needs decision on passage of a topic ban.LM2000 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Airplaneman. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Could we please get a routine closure at Talk:List of male singles tennis players#Merger (2016)? It's been open for 5 months with the only person wanting it being the person who opened the request. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3037 days ago on 1 September 2016) Could someone please take a look at this discussion? It was started after a contentious AFD, and has been open for three weeks. I approached the nominator, who was still angry at me after the AFD, and said to take here because he didn't want to engage with me. Posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography a week ago to try to get more comment but no one else has commented. If someone could take a look at it to close, that would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a proposal to designate that help page as a guideline. As it has broad implications, I would like a formal closure by an uninvolved editor, please. (Initiated 3051 days ago on 18 August 2016) Discussion petered out a week ago. It has been open less than the default of 30 days, but more than the 7 day minimum per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines #Good practice for proposals. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Doing... Mz7 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Has been open for over seven days without a relist; needs assessment from an uninvolved admin. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin or experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#ECP - Remove manual AN posting requirement to adjust this policy; additionally any comments are welcome prior to sending the mass-message to all sysops. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 3037 days ago on 1 September 2016) {{Already done}} Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dersim massacre#About the previous name change (Initiated 3068 days ago on 1 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Drmies. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 55#RfC: Should Gjoni's side of the story be reported? (Initiated 3052 days ago on 17 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Presence or absence of consensus in >30-day-old discussion needs assessment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Question: A participant in the above discussion has now requested another user to close it, which they did in favour of the requester. Can I insist that an admin close it instead?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The close was fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The person who closed the discussion is an admin.--Retrohead (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The close was fine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Ritchie333. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The RfC at this article was delisted today. The last comment in the RfC proper was listed 20 August. I proposed a possible closure (Talk:Diesel engine#Ending RfC,) however at least one party disagrees and I am an involved party, so I'm bringing the somewhat convoluted RfC here for a closure request. Thanks for your consideration. (Initiated 3040 days ago on 29 August 2016) LaughingVulcan Grok Page! 05:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (urgh - that was an ugly one, but not a complex one). (non-admin closure) TigraanClick here to contact me 07:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1#RfC: Should Gaffney be described as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of "proponent of conspiracy theories"? (Initiated 3079 days ago on 21 July 2016)? Please consider the closed RfC Talk:Frank Gaffney/Archive 1#"Conspiracy Theorist" in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 50#RFC on adding parameters for relatives to Comic Book Character Infobox (Initiated 3068 days ago on 1 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} Alsee (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3037 days ago on 1 September 2016)
An uninvolved admin will be needed to close this RfC on 14 September (or sooner if discussion ends, but that's unlikely). I'm requesting admin closure because it has been a contentious debate. It would be ideal if someone could volunteer soon, so that there's lots of time to become familiar with the comments and background. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- RfC Period Expired: The RfC is ready for closure now at Talk:Noël Coward#RfC: Should an Infobox be added to the page? -- Dane2007 talk 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- I second that notion.--*thing goes (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} Closed as no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years? (Initiated 3050 days ago on 19 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from an involved editor: I think there are several things needing assessment: whether there is consensus for the move, and if so, the range of years/numbers to be moved, and the "targets", i.e. AD vs CE, and AD 1 vs 1 AD vs 1 (year) etc. If they're to be moved, I also suggest to the closer to prescribe a timeframe in which technical changes (to existing dab/nav templates in particular) can be changed in preparation for the move. If there's consensus for the move, but the closer deems no consensus yet for range/target, a second RfC would be a good time for the technical changes to be made and tested. Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} agtx 23:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3038 days ago on 31 August 2016) As proposer of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Protect user pages by default, I request that an experienced, uninvolved editor evaluate the (numerous) comments and close. Thank you - Funcrunch (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} - jc37 00:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3032 days ago on 6 September 2016) I request that an experienced and uninvolved editor assess this discussion and close. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} agtx 02:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Into You (Ariana Grande song)#Request for comment (Initiated 3065 days ago on 4 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - This is a discussion between 3 editors (a 4th added a "support" comment) about whether WP:SYNTH applies to summarizing references in the lede of an article. I don't know that there is anything to "close" here. I'm going to drop a note pointing them to the WP:VP. - jc37 09:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 11#RfC: "racism" in lede (Initiated 3067 days ago on 2 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by RockMagnetist (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Philippines v. China#Request for comment (Initiated 3056 days ago on 13 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sandstein (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3041 days ago on 28 August 2016) Given the recent and ongoing sensitive discussions about this issue, I request a formal close by a totally uninvolved administrator who has not participated as discussant or as closer in any of the 2016 debates regarding the titling structure of New York-related articles (debates which started with Talk:New York#Requested move 9 June 2016). — JFG talk 11:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I might take this one~, if folks don't mind and I have time - seems like a somewhat complex discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3041 days ago on 28 August 2016) Would an experienced, uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right? Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by L235 (talk · contribs) and Callanecc (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#How should languages be categorized (Initiated 3066 days ago on 3 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Nice idea. Deryck C. 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Deryck Chan (talk · contribs) for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of senior officers of the Argentine Navy#Rename (Initiated 3047 days ago on 22 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Working Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)- {{Done}} Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion has been open for over a month now with next to no discussion since then. The number of votes themselves are split, but since we don't just count votes, it looks like we need someone uninvolved to weigh the arguments. Someone familiar with WP:GNG with respect to weighing a term showing up in Google versus actually having enough reliably sourced content for a standalone article would probably get to the heart of the matter pretty well. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 54#RfC: Proposed new lede for Gamergate controversy (Initiated 3061 days ago on 8 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfCs at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Systemic Bias: Proposing a separate standard of notability and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N (Initiated 3096 days ago on 4 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Partly done. I handled the first one, but won't take the second one to avoid monopolizing. Rhoark (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)- {{Done}}. I've closed the second one. agtx 18:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016#Proposed merge with R/The Donald (Initiated 3045 days ago on 24 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
(Initiated 3026 days ago on 12 September 2016) I request that an experienced and uninvolved editor assess this discussion and close. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 August#Syrian civil war (Initiated 3042 days ago on 27 August 2016) Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ping. Participants are looking for a close see end of the discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- That seems really like a "colour of the bikeshed" thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, it's been open for 44 days and needs to be closed.--Cúchullain t/c 15:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- That seems really like a "colour of the bikeshed" thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ping per above. Charles Essie (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Amakuru — Andy W. (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. There has been a dispute for several weeks about whether or not presidential candidates Castle and Mcmullin should be included in the infobox and what the pre-election inclusion criteria should be. An RfC has been going on for more than 2 weeks now. Many users have expressed concern that if the RfC is not closed before election day the RfC would be rendered moot, especially since there is already an undisputed post-election inclusion criteria that these candidates may or may not meet. Since the discussion has pretty much come to a stand still anyways, we are asking for the RfC to be closed ASAP in order to bring clarity to what the consensus is as well as prevent future edit wars which have been occurring on and off for more than a month. Thanks! Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28#Official photo (Initiated 3017 days ago on 21 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. My talk page is going to light up in 3... 2... 1... —S Marshall T/C 23:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This recently closed. Needs a closer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am currently trying to talk this close out with Prcc27. If he doesn't justify the close, this will be going to review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Please disposition Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 22#File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Deryck C. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Talk:Eritrea#Location (Initiated 3054 days ago on 15 August 2016)? Thanks, Soupforone (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- The dispute as a whole should be reviewed. It does also exist a case in the admin incident board [2]. The admin should not be involved user as mentioned and not a admin involved in similar disputes (between the same partiets) such as admin CambridgeBayWeather. Richard0048 (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RFC on creation of consensus standard (Initiated 3065 days ago on 4 August 2016)? There is a request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#Request to close?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Frankfurt School#RfC: Does the lede of the "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section follow WP:NPOV and is its claim supported by cited sources? (Initiated 3053 days ago on 16 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pavel Florensky#Request for Comment (Initiated 3037 days ago on 1 September 2016)? Please consider Talk:Pavel Florensky#Antisemitism in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RFC on creation of consensus standard (Initiated 3065 days ago on 4 August 2016)? There is a request for closure at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#Request to close?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you S Marshall (talk · contribs) for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
The RfC for this discussion expired on the 18th. Would an uninvolved administrator assess the arguments and whether or not a consensus was reached on the matter or on part of the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Prcc27 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Prcc27 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced user assess the consensus formed here and close the discussion? Thanks. (Initiated 3027 days ago on 11 September 2016) --Mhhossein talk 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sa.vakilian (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Discussion open for a year with 1 opposition and 8 support votes. Not quite willing to go boldly as there is one initial opposition. There are also a few other similar previous discussions on that page. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 21:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Armbrust (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)#List of fatalities (Initiated 3032 days ago on 6 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of awareness ribbons#RFC (Initiated 3030 days ago on 8 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of bus routes in London#colour codes (Initiated 3038 days ago on 31 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elvis Presley#RfC: Is a military infobox module appropriate? (Initiated 3024 days ago on 14 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doing... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Han Chinese#RfC on inclusion of numbers of Chinese people (Initiated 3020 days ago on 18 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kaine#Request for comment (Initiated 3026 days ago on 12 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} although so far one user thinks that my assessment will complicate things. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- At least two editors consider that the close was not reflective of the consensus contained within the RfC. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:European Open (snooker)#RFC: Should the European Masters entry be split from this article to a new article? (Initiated 665932 days ago on 22 September 0201)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284#LavaBaron's editing restrictions - review (Initiated 2998 days ago on 10 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I closed it myself as initiator without a side. Deryck C. 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jules Feiffer#RFC for picture change (Initiated 3016 days ago on 22 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doing... Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:Violence against men#Which version is better? (Initiated 3021 days ago on 17 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Neither version was up to much, really.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft (Initiated 3026 days ago on 12 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Whew.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- A very difficult close and an excellent, detailed closing rationale. Thank you, S Marshall (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alexander the Great#RfC - Jewish tradition (Initiated 3044 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, S Marshall (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Requesting close because of this diff [3]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Doing.... Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how expired requests are handled here -- archived, auto-archived, or just deleted -- but anyway, this RfC 1) does not necessarily require a close, and 2) has been auto-archived due to inactivitiy. So I hatted it and, and it can be deleted or archived I guess. Herostratus (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Moot
|
|---|
|
(Initiated 3049 days ago on 20 August 2016). Note that the later thread Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Sandwiching is an extended part of the RfC discussion as well, as is the subthread mentioned in the request immediately below this one. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC) updated 04:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
|
See the above thread, of which this describes a sub-thread. Herostratus (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Moot
|
|---|
|
An uninvolved editor will be needed to close this RfC on 30 September. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
|
(Initiated 3029 days ago on 9 September 2016) Would an editor please assess and close this discussion. Springee (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Already {{done}} Sunrise (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Resolved}} Would an esteemed admin kindly volunteer to assess consensus in this long and relevant discussion about WP:TWODABS guidance? — JFG talk 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- RfC relisted Pppery 21:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Redirects for discussion
Here are a few RfDs which have already been relisted twice:
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type – (Initiated 3081 days ago on 19 July 2016)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1#Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question – (Initiated 3067 days ago on 2 August 2016)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1#Interstate 13 – (Initiated 3064 days ago on 5 August 2016)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 2#Quincy Magoo (film) – (Initiated 3060 days ago on 9 August 2016)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#African stereotypes – (Initiated 3052 days ago on 17 August 2016)Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#Wikipedia:IAP – (Initiated 3042 days ago on 27 August 2016)
Any help is, of course, appreciated. --BDD (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Done by Randykitty. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charming Liars. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Han Chinese#RfC on languages (Initiated 3050 days ago on 19 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daniel (biblical figure)#RfC: Including attribution of statement (Initiated 3023 days ago on 15 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion was marked as complete on 3 October, and, given the strong opinions expressed on both sides, needs a formal closure. It was suggested during the discussion that it might be best for a panel of three admins to decide this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jane Austen#RfC: Establish consensus on a consistent format for citations in Jane Austen (Initiated 3047 days ago on 22 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 53#RfC: Remove the sentence "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (Initiated 3005 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sarah#RFC (Initiated 3000 days ago on 8 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}}
A single purpose account has a serious problem with WP:IDHT. This lone editor has argued for over a month that trivial information about Oswald's job as a radar operator on a military base that coincidentally involved U-2 planes should be included in the article. Editor makes no sourced connection between Oswald and U-2, and clearly is trying to insert an unfounded implication into the article that Oswald was involved in a bigger conspiracy. Editor repeats the same argument again and again and can't take no for an answer. (Initiated 3033 days ago on 5 September 2016) Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#RfC: University rankings in lede (Initiated 3008 days ago on 30 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
{{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Requesting formal close on Template talk:Infobox video game#Multiple release dates in the infobox czar 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert Sarah#RFC (Initiated 3000 days ago on 8 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note - restored by me after I reverted a poor close which didn't address the issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- For total transparency, following [4] was my closing rationale after the above editor expressed umbrage with my first closure. The closure has since been reverted a second time.
- For total transparency, following [4] was my closing rationale after the above editor expressed umbrage with my first closure. The closure has since been reverted a second time.
| “ | The RfC has been open for one month with the last substantive comment made more than two weeks ago. At this point two editors support the heading Opposition to LGBT Rights, one editor supports the heading Views, one editor supports the heading Views based on the reconstruction of the article since the RfC's opening, one editor opposesOpposition to LGBT Rights but has not clearly stated support for an alternate heading, and another editor has expressed a general opinion on the existential nature of the discussion. Interspersed with this is a high amount of back-and-forth and tête-à-tête that is largely incoherent to a person not heavily entrenched in, what seems to be, a long backstory of WP:DRAMA on this article (including the use of "LOL", vague allusions to some participants block logs, angry declarations by one editor that he's "done helping here" due to some pattern of offenses allegedly suffered, allegations of persecution, etc.). A comment-by-comment analysis of the arguments presented finds, in the opinion of the closing editor, a general (but not total) void of substantive policy-based arguments that would trump the quantitative analysis just iterated. At this time there is no consensus and the RfC is closed as no consensus without prejudice for its subsequent reopening to achieve consensus. This decision can be appealed at |
” |
- I participate in closure review to help out, not to get grief from the parties to the RfC. I happily leave this one, and closure review generally, to someone else. Hasta la vista - LavaBaron (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Reclosed by yours truly. I took a slightly different view.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Surrender (military)#Rfc : Shouldn' this Photograph of Pakistan's surrender in 1971 be added? (Initiated 3004 days ago on 4 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, S Marshall (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284#Calibrador: Proposal and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284#Calibrador: Alternative to 1RR proposal
These two proposals for editing restrictions are part of this larger discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Self-promotion by User:Calibrador. Thank you. (Initiated 3026 days ago on 12 September 2016)- MrX 21:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - No need to close, as there was a followup further down the page. And it's been a month and a half now, if someone sees further issues, they're of course welcome to start a new AN/I, and point to those discussions' information. - jc37 21:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive938#Proposed deletion-related topic ban for User:Light2021 (Initiated 2976 days ago on 1 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Things look okay at the article these days, but this discussion should have a close to help put the previous dispute to bed. Keep in mind that the question is not simply about distinguishing the terms (which is something the article already does); it's about whether we should strictly distinguish them (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding this, I have objected to Rhoark closing this RfC. Due to our disputes in the past, I do not consider him a neutral party. And I would rather not rehash here what those disputes were. Will a neutral editor close this RfC? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: I also commented on Rhoark's talk page about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- My closure was not contingent on the identities of any people participating. It was part of a slate of backlogged closures, so the fact you posed it did not influence my decision to close it. The topic is not related to any disagreement we've had in the past. The RfC was posed reasonably neutrally, and you expressed no definite preferences apart from that the article should not be forked. You've said the closure itself is not bad, and if it differs in any way from your preferred outcome, I don't know what that difference is. It does not seem possible that I could have acted even with a subconscious desire to thwart you. In consideration of all this, I don't think it's necessary to withdraw the closure, but I'm open to more community input. Rhoark (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rhoark (last time pinging you in this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I appreciate you taking the time to explain and being open to community input. It is difficult for me to trust people acting in a neutral manner toward me if I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with those people. Editing here for years, in the various contentious topics I edit in, has proven my distrust to be valid. It usually takes a significant time for me to even consider that an editor I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with might become a good Wikipedia acquaintance of mine and/or might be willing to be neutral when it comes to me. There are a few such editors, but that took time. As for my preference for the RfC outcome, I didn't object because your close went against any preference I might have. My preferences were: That the article not be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing, and that we don't unnecessarily content fork. But I am curious about something. The RfC, as previously noted, is about whether we should strictly distinguish the terms/concepts (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). I don't see any consensus that we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. And your close begins by noting that definitions for the topic are not consistent. But then you stated, "There seems to be agreement that the article should more clearly partition its material to being about one concept or the other, but should not over-emphasize terminology as a way to distinguish the two." Why did you state that? How can the article more clearly be about one subject or the other, given the interchangeability of the terms? See the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section of the Eidetic memory article. That is a needed section. Do you mean that the article should pretty much stay as it is, with the lead noting the interchangeability and distinguishing aspects, and that one section going into further detail, but the rest of the article focusing specifically on eidetic memory (as in the one with more scientific backing)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus that I read is that there are two concepts sharing a term. Normally they would be disambiguated with separate pages, but in this case there is sufficient reason not to do so, considering how often the two are conflated. Imagine there were a consensus to cover Bill (law) and beak in the same Wikipedia article for some reason. You would have to pay attention to what each source means by "bill". If you juxtapose claims about both of them you might have readers thinking waterfowl are part of the legislative process. That's what I refer to by "partitioning". On the other hand, you wouldn't say "A bill is always proposed legislation and never part of a bird," since you know there are sources that mean different things by "bill". There wasn't enough discussion about things like which section should be first or longest to call a consensus on anything like that. I notice you've unilaterally reverted the close.[5] That's not the recommended process and I don't agree with the action or reasons. I'm not disposed to argue about it though. Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into. Rhoark (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures (which is an information page, not a policy or a guideline) indicates that it is about disagreeing with a closer's rationale. I, on the other hand, disagree with you closing the RfC regardless of your rationale, and I've been clear about why. If you were an administrator, I could cite WP:INVOLVED. But since you are not, I can only state that a closer should be a neutral party. This is clear at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Requesting a close. Given our history, I would have never attempted to close a discussion you were involved in. And you stating "Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into." is the type of thing I mean when it comes to your opinion of me being able to factor into matters. You make it seem like I am being difficult. Politely asking that another editor close the RfC because the previous editor who closed it is not exactly a neutral party when it comes to me is not being difficult. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus that I read is that there are two concepts sharing a term. Normally they would be disambiguated with separate pages, but in this case there is sufficient reason not to do so, considering how often the two are conflated. Imagine there were a consensus to cover Bill (law) and beak in the same Wikipedia article for some reason. You would have to pay attention to what each source means by "bill". If you juxtapose claims about both of them you might have readers thinking waterfowl are part of the legislative process. That's what I refer to by "partitioning". On the other hand, you wouldn't say "A bill is always proposed legislation and never part of a bird," since you know there are sources that mean different things by "bill". There wasn't enough discussion about things like which section should be first or longest to call a consensus on anything like that. I notice you've unilaterally reverted the close.[5] That's not the recommended process and I don't agree with the action or reasons. I'm not disposed to argue about it though. Anyone else reviewing this noticeboard will know what they'll be getting into. Rhoark (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rhoark (last time pinging you in this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), I appreciate you taking the time to explain and being open to community input. It is difficult for me to trust people acting in a neutral manner toward me if I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with those people. Editing here for years, in the various contentious topics I edit in, has proven my distrust to be valid. It usually takes a significant time for me to even consider that an editor I've had a tempestuous or semi-tempestuous Wikipedia relationship with might become a good Wikipedia acquaintance of mine and/or might be willing to be neutral when it comes to me. There are a few such editors, but that took time. As for my preference for the RfC outcome, I didn't object because your close went against any preference I might have. My preferences were: That the article not be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing, and that we don't unnecessarily content fork. But I am curious about something. The RfC, as previously noted, is about whether we should strictly distinguish the terms/concepts (as in say they are not the same thing and leave it at that). I don't see any consensus that we should be strict in stating that they are not the same thing. And your close begins by noting that definitions for the topic are not consistent. But then you stated, "There seems to be agreement that the article should more clearly partition its material to being about one concept or the other, but should not over-emphasize terminology as a way to distinguish the two." Why did you state that? How can the article more clearly be about one subject or the other, given the interchangeability of the terms? See the "Eidetic memory or photographic memory" section of the Eidetic memory article. That is a needed section. Do you mean that the article should pretty much stay as it is, with the lead noting the interchangeability and distinguishing aspects, and that one section going into further detail, but the rest of the article focusing specifically on eidetic memory (as in the one with more scientific backing)? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- My closure was not contingent on the identities of any people participating. It was part of a slate of backlogged closures, so the fact you posed it did not influence my decision to close it. The topic is not related to any disagreement we've had in the past. The RfC was posed reasonably neutrally, and you expressed no definite preferences apart from that the article should not be forked. You've said the closure itself is not bad, and if it differs in any way from your preferred outcome, I don't know what that difference is. It does not seem possible that I could have acted even with a subconscious desire to thwart you. In consideration of all this, I don't think it's necessary to withdraw the closure, but I'm open to more community input. Rhoark (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:Rhoark. Previous interaction with an editor does not necessarily mean they are WP:INVOLVED with some arbitrary discussion that that editor may be in. I've undone the reversion of the closure without reading the closure (therefore don't read this as an admin endorsement of the close, merely that the undoing of the closure appeared inappropriate based upon the comments above). If anyone has concerns about this, please feel free to start an WP:AN discussion about the close as appropriate. Any uninvolved admin is welcome to undo/revert this action without needing to notify me. - jc37 22:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note after archive: See here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 20#RFC:Should Judge Curiel’s membership in the Hispanic National Bar Association be in the Donald Trump article? (Initiated 3058 days ago on 11 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking? (Initiated 3041 days ago on 28 August 2016)? Thanks, Neutralitytalk 20:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184#RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates? (Initiated 3049 days ago on 20 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess consensus on this stale political AfD? Thanks. — JFG talk 07:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of best-selling albums in the United States#Request for comment on use of sources (Initiated 3081 days ago on 19 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AlMaghrib Institute#RFC: Should the article mention Qadhi's statements on the Holocaust from 2001? (Initiated 3019 days ago on 19 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Needs accurate evaluation for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Lemongirl942. Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor close the Talk:Bitcoin#RfC: shall the sourced information on transaction fees be restored?? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir: There's been minimal involvement in that RfC, and it hasn't run 30 days yet. Sam Walton (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This WP:RM discussion has somehow been open since March with no closure. (Initiated 3200 days ago on 22 March 2016)--Cúchullain t/c 20:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Paine Ellsworth Pppery 23:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Pppery! With this edit back in April, the RM was reopened; however, it never seemed to bot back into the system until recently. I noticed it today as the last and oldest item in the RM backlog, and then closed it. Paine u/c 23:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Please relist Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 November 3#Template:United States Postal Service, as the only two people other than myself that have commented are the same two individuals that commented on my talk page, whose discussion is now closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Plastikspork. Thank you for closing the TfD! Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 October 21#File:Alan kurdi smiling playground.jpg. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the FfD!. Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neonicotinoid/Archive 2#RFC: Inclusion of a sentence on a primary study (Initiated 3046 days ago on 23 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format (Initiated 3044 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Menelik II#RfC on Menelik's "Reign as Emperor" split out (Initiated 3041 days ago on 28 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - Doesn't look like a need to close. - jc37 19:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66#RfC for NFCC#8 exemptions for currency and USPS stamps (Initiated 3072 days ago on 28 July 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Miniature Australian Shepherd#Renewed merge discussion (Initiated 3053 days ago on 16 August 2016)? There is a clear consensus for a merge. However, editors are split on merging Miniature Australian Shepherd to Miniature American Shepherd or merging Miniature American Shepherd to Miniature Australian Shepherd. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Request speedy close on Talk:Lane splitting#RFC: looking for outside opinions on dispute about wording
Requesting speedy close of this RfC. The initiator has not made a reasonable effort to resolve this very petty dispute over wording. One of the three editors in the discussion has not yet replied. The actual reasons for the disagreement were only just outlined fully in just over 24 hours ago. I have not yet had time to post the full list of citations that I alluded to mere hours ago. Neither side has had time to suggest any compromise wording. All of this violates the instructions at WP:RfC to make an effort before starting an RfC. Any outside editor who is drawn into this petty dispute is going to find it annoying that such drama has been created over this obscure issue.
Please close for now and at least give it a week to see if we can work it out before pestering the wider community with this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) protected the talk page. Floquenbeam, would you review this closure request and determine whether the RfC should be speedy closed or kept open? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's almost been a month even since that request, so I don't think it's a question of "speedy" anything at this point : ) - jc37 23:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - I dropped a note there about the word row in the hopes of helping them towards consensus, only to hear from one of the participants that this has been resolved already. - jc37 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format, including the tangential discussion of {{RDTr}} at the bottom (Initiated 3044 days ago on 25 August 2016)? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
RfC Closure
Please go here to address my concerns on a user that keeps undoing an RfC closure. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Could an admin please re-close this RfC while also assessing consensus in related sections throughout the talk page? It would be great to get resolution before election day. Thanks! Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not a simple closure of an RfC.There are multiple RfC's going on about the same topic, along with up to a dozen other discussions, the topic of which has been under discussion since ~ Aug 23, 2016. The discussion involves revisiting a specific editing criterion established in 2012 that applies to the U.S. presidential general elections generally (not just this article).This needs to be handled by (at least) a couple of uninvolved admins andif there is a closing, I recommend closing all RfCs/discussions and starting over again after the election (after the editors who are supporting particular candidates are gone). Here's a brief history of the discussions I wrote up as an involved editor, but as unbiasedly as I could write it. [6] Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)- Note: The issue under discussion is about the criterion used to include candidates in the infobox prior to the election -- after the election, there is a different set of criteria because vote totals are available then -- so although the discussion would be
mute[moot] for this particular article after the electiion, the issue of whether of not to change the pre-election criterion would still be used for future articles. (Plus the discussion would be easier after the election without all of the candidate hacks involved.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 21:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)- @Antony-22: has just revealed a number of discussions on my talk page [7] from 2012 which were not previously mentioned on the 2016 talk page (where this subject RfC is) and which appear to be dispositive as to the much of the issue being discussed in all those RfC's/discussions. I've posted a recommendation at the subject RfC to close all the RfC's/discussions related to the issue in light of this "new" information. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: The issue under discussion is about the criterion used to include candidates in the infobox prior to the election -- after the election, there is a different set of criteria because vote totals are available then -- so although the discussion would be
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 13#A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle ( pre-election infobox inclusion criteria ) (Initiated 3005 days ago on 3 October 2016)? See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive937#RfC Closure. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - Ok, so I spent quite a bit of time sifting through all of this. This had additional complications due to editors talking about how the page looked "now" (which meant viewing the article from it's history), edit warring, as well as a reverted closure by an involved editor which others subsequent to that treated as consensus when commenting in follow-up discussions. All that said, while at this point I can close all of this if truly needed, as the election is over, and the next is 4 years away, and as potentially, consensus can change in the meantime, I don't see much of a purpose in closing this now, even with all the work I put into this this far. - jc37 02:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2014 Oso mudslide#Request for comment (Initiated 3010 days ago on 28 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Twin paradox#Request for comment on neutrality of statement about paradoxical symmetrical ageing (Initiated 3013 days ago on 25 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox observatory#Request for comments: Satisfy verifiability related RfC? (Initiated 3012 days ago on 26 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - Already resolved - jc37 05:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#RFC: Proposal to rework Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation (Initiated 3050 days ago on 19 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - apparently already implemented - jc37 02:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion on whether to list as Samantha Bee as Canadian or Canadian-American is now just a back and forth argument between Sport and politics and myself. Since it's clear we won't agree and no other editor as commented in over a week, we need an outside editor to end the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please close the discussion on Talk:Blockchain_(database)#CoinDesk_as_a_source. Discussion has been open a long time, and has had no new input in some time. Needs a formal close as it has been contentious in multiple other/previous discussions on that article Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, 2017#RFC: Candidate ages (Initiated 2994 days ago on 14 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#RFC on addition of 2016 Nice, France terrorist attack (Initiated 2990 days ago on 18 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The RfC template recently expired. The discussion could use a close. It's pretty much a WP:SNOW case, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 22, as this is holding up a history merge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation#Requested move 1 October 2016 (Initiated 3007 days ago on 1 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dinesh D'Souza#RfC -- Can we call D'Souza a "conspiracy theorist" in Wikipedia's voice ? (Initiated 2991 days ago on 17 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is starting to dwindle. There seems to be enough participation to gauge consensus at this point.- MrX 15:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} LavaBaron (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Black Kite. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved administrator assess the consensus and please close this RFC? Thank you Talk:Ruger Mini-14#Rfc: Add major incidents to article? CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as "consensus to include the material".- MrX 15:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Axis: Bold as Love#RfC: Should hard rock, jazz, and rhythm & blues be kept in the infobox? (Initiated 3006 days ago on 2 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as no consensus.- MrX 16:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a fairly even split in the discussion and some complicated WP:ACCESSIBILITY arguments, so it would probably be best if an admin were to close it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} by EdJohnston as consensus for Option B.- MrX 16:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor take a look at this, please. It is just over 30 days, and has no input since (mine from) a week ago. - Nabla (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as no consensus to include coordinates.- MrX 00:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Paralympics (Initiated 2997 days ago on 11 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as consensus is that the proposed text should not be restored.- MrX 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Al Jaffee#RFC for picture (Initiated 2994 days ago on 14 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as consensus for the current infobox image.- MrX 01:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Diego Maradona#RFC: Maradona of Spanish or Italian ancestry? (Initiated 2994 days ago on 14 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as consensus to omit ancestry. - MrX 01:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 60#Speedy deletion for books (Initiated 2988 days ago on 20 October 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as no consensus for the proposed speedy deletion criteria.- MrX 03:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess this? On votes there appears, to this editor, to be a clear consensus, and the thread is degenerating into cat-calling. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Midnightblueowl as there is a clear consensus in favour of one option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This request has only been open 21 days, however, there has been no new opinion registered in a week and there seems to be a WP:SNOWBALL consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Midnightblueowl as there is a clear consensus in favour of one option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Needs closure from an uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as no change to infobox alma mater parameter. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 12#Can other site accounts ever be linked to (Initiated 3100 days ago on 30 June 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking a three-person closure (Including at least one user who handles non-public information on a regular basis) would be advisable for this discussion. I'll volunteer with the admission that I am probably one of the worst people to close this, so I'll defer to basically any other team of three. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazerdadog:
Am up for it. Deryck C. 13:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)- Ok, so we need at least one more, and someone who has handled private info on a regular basis. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The WP:Signpost has just run two issues that discuss the issue at hand extensively. This is likely to generate a lot extra participation in the debate in the coming week or so, which will hopefully generate new arguments and possibly affect the outcome. I think we should hold on for at least two more weeks before closure. Deryck C. 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Two weeks might be excessive, but a week is certainly a good idea. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, but I should decline the offer given I've directly contributed to the debate on a couple of occasions, as well as the Signpost editorial comment section. The best ways to reach others who handled routinely handled private information. would be a neutrally-worded email to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which will reach current CU's and Oversighters plus a small collection of former arbs. Someone who hasn't taken part in the debate would hopefully then step forward to help with the close. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Euryalus (talk · contribs) and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), oversighters who have posted in WP:ANRFC recently. Would one of you be able to join Tazerdadog and Deryck Chan in closing the discussion? Or do you know how to reach out to others who have "handled private info on a regular basis"? Cunard (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Cunard and Tazeradog: Okay, probably time to get people to close this. Any nominations on "someone who has handled private info on a regular basis"? I have handled personal information for Wikimedia before, but that's in the context of organising meatspace Wikimedia events. Deryck C. 12:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
- There appears to still be an open request for closure of this here. - jc37 22:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- User:Tazerdadog and User:Deryck Chan, are you both still willing to close this? I'll give it a week for you to respond, else I'll see about closing it. - jc37 18:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm willing to close it, but I'm worried that the debate will be stale at this point. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
{{close}} I've never done anything like this before, but on the basis of post one, close one, I'm going to close this one as stale. The thread was archived on October 20, so there's nothing to be gained by leaving it on here. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive285#Request for re-close of an old RfC (and closure of a disruptive RfC) (Initiated 3043 days ago on 26 August 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- N. B. the permalink is here (the do-not-archive tag expired; but so has discussion, so the permalink should suffice.) Herostratus (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:MPay#Proposed merge with Advanced Info Service (Initiated 2983 days ago on 25 October 2016) after 30 days have passed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages (Initiated 3023 days ago on 15 September 2016)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Tavix (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to a different discussion in your edit summary here? Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages is not closed yet, so I removed the close template so this will not be archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's been archived, the discussion is stale. Pardon me for using the wrong word. -- Tavix (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I think it would be useful to have an experienced editor determine whether there is consensus for the proposal to keep two-item disambiguation pages. JFG (talk · contribs) requested closure at WP:ANRFC at and Pppery (talk · contribs) marked it as relisted here. Pinging them and RfC initiator Gorthian (talk · contribs) and RfC relister Doncram (talk · contribs) to see if they would like a closure or if they agree this is better left unclosed as stale. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard, pardon, I'm very confused by this venue, but you have us reversed. Doncram was the RfC initiator and I relisted it, because it seemed we weren't done with the discussion. Tavix, you marked "done" just above; what is it that's done? — Gorthian (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion is done since it's been stale for weeks now and it's been archived. RfC's don't need formal closures when the result is obvious--in this case it's an obvious "no consensus" so I figured it best to just let it die. -- Tavix (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard, pardon, I'm very confused by this venue, but you have us reversed. Doncram was the RfC initiator and I relisted it, because it seemed we weren't done with the discussion. Tavix, you marked "done" just above; what is it that's done? — Gorthian (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. I think it would be useful to have an experienced editor determine whether there is consensus for the proposal to keep two-item disambiguation pages. JFG (talk · contribs) requested closure at WP:ANRFC at and Pppery (talk · contribs) marked it as relisted here. Pinging them and RfC initiator Gorthian (talk · contribs) and RfC relister Doncram (talk · contribs) to see if they would like a closure or if they agree this is better left unclosed as stale. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's been archived, the discussion is stale. Pardon me for using the wrong word. -- Tavix (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to a different discussion in your edit summary here? Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 46#Proposal: keep two-item dab pages is not closed yet, so I removed the close template so this will not be archived by the bot. Cunard (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This section and others, for example the already closed Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Atsugi, are protracted WP:FORUM debates and seem to be going nowhere. (Initiated 3033 days ago on 5 September 2016) —DIY Editor (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Has been open for nearly a month; needs closure from an uninvolved admin (I personally have no opinion on the subject). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Drmies (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the AfD! Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion has been left open for a month, I cannot close it as I am involved. Thanks Nordic Nightfury 11:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Thryduulf (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the AfD! Cunard (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2016#RfC: Shall we ban macrons in titles? (Initiated 2974 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Draft Namespace Redirects (Initiated 2976 days ago on 1 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nothing Was the Same#RfC: Should metacritic be listed in both the review scores box and the critical reception article? (Initiated 2984 days ago on 24 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There may be a consensus, but I need someone to do the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Watson#RfC on comments leading to Watson's resignation (Initiated 3011 days ago on 27 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This AfD should be closed per WP:SNOW – there are currently 33 !votes for keep and only four in favour of deletion (including the nom). The article is high-profile and high-traffic, and the AfD tag is basically only serving as a "badge of shame" at this point. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Anachronist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the AfD, Anachronist (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church#RfC about the names of both the Catholic church and the Orthodox church (Initiated 2989 days ago on 19 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, but given the first paragraph of the close, I suggest to keep it listed until a week has gone by without any challenge. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor.LM2000 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Requesting again as this discussion has gone stale and it's heading into its second month. An attempt by one user to close was met with controversy.[8][9]LM2000 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed as move. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the requested move, Patar knight (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
RfC will be 30 days old on 21 November (ignore signatures near the top as they are re-signs or material added significantly after RfC start). FWIW, there is a consensus to close now, due to no activity, at Talk:Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Call for close. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Hockey League#Request for comment on inclusion of subsection "Women in the NHL" (Initiated 2988 days ago on 20 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 05:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Ramaksoud2000 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Security Policy/Archive 2#RfC: Wording of Lede (Initiated 2973 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Hobit (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Password strength requirements#RFC November 2016 (Initiated 2961 days ago on 16 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Hobit (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judith Barsi#Cause of death (Initiated 2984 days ago on 24 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Amortias (T)(C) 21:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Could an experienced editor please close the discussion on this page?Hobit (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
While the discussion might need more time, requesting it earlier is best due to the backlog of requests above. George Ho (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor will be needed soon to close the above. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 2958 days ago on 19 November 2016)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 188#Proposal to stop supporting pull quotes (Initiated 2966 days ago on 11 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Hobit (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Relatively simple question about an infobox image. RfC is 30 days old today and has been de-listed. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by EvergreenFir (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on for nine days, two longer than AFDs are supposed to go on for. It is very long (in terms of the amount of text that editors have written in it), very heated, and lots of long-term editors, myself included, have offered contradictory opinions in it. I would like to request that an uninvolved admin close it. Everymorning (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Coffee. Thank you for closing the AfD! Cunard (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Proposed rewording in instructions for listing: when to use <noinclude> (Initiated 3035 days ago on 3 September 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus seems apparent enough, so I don't think a formal close is strictly necessary
(all the more so because the discussion has now been automatically archived),but it would be be good to have someone uninvolved confirm that. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)- I think that this should be formally closed, especially because, if there is consensus to do anything in that discussion, it hasn't been done. Pppery 23:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- My reading of the consensus has been challenged, so a formal closure would be needed. – Uanfala (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think that this should be formally closed, especially because, if there is consensus to do anything in that discussion, it hasn't been done. Pppery 23:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:AD 1#What should the articles from 1 to 100 be moved to? (Initiated 3002 days ago on 6 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:AD 1#RFC: Should articles "1" to "100" be about numbers instead of years? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by involved editor. The closing statement of the earlier RfC stated:
the consensus is that the pages 1-100 will be moved only if a consensus can be reached as to the name of the articles
. If there's assessed consensus for a title, please consider suggesting a period of time in which pre-move preparations can (need to) be made before the batch moves. This will involve new conditional logic such as year nav/dab templates. If it's assessed there's no consensus, these template updates will not be necessary. Take this with a grain of salt; I'm an involved editor, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC) - Comment by involved editor. Concur with Andy. There would be a lot of work required in the year-related templates, although some needs to be done anyway, and the first RfC was contingent on a WP:CONSENSUS as to the move targets, which is not related to a majority. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by OP – Work on the templates has started and is not very difficult if we stick to changing the targets of years 1–100. There was a rather strong consensus in the original RfC for limiting the move to this range. Titles of year articles should be consistent but several name variants are already handled by redirects, so there is no harm in whichever solution is adopted. — JFG talk 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Update – By collective effort of some editors, pages 1…9 have been moved to AD 1…AD 9 as a testbed to validate all necessary technical changes, including numerous templates dealing with years. Titles 1…9 are now assigned to the disambiguation pages. There were no objections from readers and other discussion participants so far. We are waiting for a formal closure of the second RfC in order to proceed with the migration work for 10…100 if a naming convention can be decided. — JFG talk 16:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Hobit (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the RfC! Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eckhart Tolle#RFC (Initiated 2962 days ago on 15 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Amortias (T)(C) 12:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
This discussion forum currently has an average backlog, 17 items going back to November 7, 2016. (15:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC))
- Seems to be {{done}}, only two items left. Pppery 14:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Johannes Brahms#RFC: Should the lead of the article on Johannes Brahms include counterpoint as a key element in his compositional style? (Initiated 2988 days ago on 20 October 2016)? Please consider Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 2#Illegitimate RFC in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pizzagate#Request for Comment - Should "pizzagate" only refer to the 2004 incident or the 2004 and 2016 incident? (Initiated 2950 days ago on 27 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
There has been edit-warring on the article over the overwhelming consensus in the RfC, and the edit-warrior's latest edit summary is "you must follow process, RFC requires formal closure, any change can only be made based on the RFC result". Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please help closing this RfC, as it has expired now. Some participants have required an official closure. (Initiated 2956 days ago on 21 November 2016) Dino nam (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Resolved}} Closed with consensus to delete victory/defeat descriptor (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Clear Censorship of Her Christian Identity (Initiated 2980 days ago on 28 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC) {{Resolved}} Closed with consensus to Oppose inclusion (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Templating, so that the archive bot does its deed. TigraanClick here to contact me 19:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Infobox (Initiated 2973 days ago on 4 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus for second alternative (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The talk page conversation has gotten way off topic and out of control with one or two editors keeping this alive with repeated posts about the merits of having award lists on Wikipedia. I tried to archive this myself, before understanding the specific rules about Requests for Closures, and it was immediately un-archived with more off topic posts about how Wikipedia should not have certain award lists. The talk page conversation has strayed away from the subject of the article and a lot of users have given up with the same people who are going around and around with the same posts. Can an uninvolved individual close and archive this. I would also recommend watching it for a short time afterwards as there is a high chance one of the original editors may try to unarchive it and keep the debate alive. (Initiated 2927 days ago on 20 December 2016)-O.R.Comms 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as moot after awards moved to separate article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Which is the better statement? (Initiated 2982 days ago on 26 October 2016)? Please consider the closed RfCs Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#RfC: Is the language biased? and Talk:Natalie Portman/Archive 4#Does a "major" role need to be cited as such by reliable sources? in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus against using term "major" without support. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Goa Opinion Poll#RfC: Referendum Suggestion (Initiated 2957 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done Consensus against new name has remained unchanged for three weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Though the subject is important, the RfC probably isn't necessary. AndrewOne (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has stayed open for nearly six months! ((Initiated 3122 days ago on 8 June 2016)) Pppery 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Being closed by Cenarium Pppery 15:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} {finally} Pppery 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Unanimously opposed; it's snowing, someone please close this. Sam Walton (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- (involved comment) - I think it is reasonable to snow-close or procedural-close the original proposition, but to keep the "alternative proposal" by Jbh open. Maybe refactor the whole page or something. I made a comment to that effect here. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- The alternative proposal should certainly remain open, yes. ~ Rob13Talk 15:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll close the first part. BethNaught (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- Partly done by BethNaught. The other part of the RfC (which should probably run at least a full month) was (Initiated 2955 days ago on 22 November 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 17:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
{{resolved}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dental caries#RfC about article's lead image (Initiated 2974 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Closed. NW (Talk) 01:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
{{resolved}} Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Television content rating systems#RfC: Should we add a new category in the comparison table? (Initiated 2986 days ago on 22 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- This RfC was closed (non-admin closure) on 17 December 2016 by SlitherioFan2016 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This article has been a recurrent hotbed of controversy, especially of claims of bias against the subject by WP regulars and for the subject by newcomers who appear to be fans of the subject. The RfC in question proposed two wording choices, and an alternative third one was later added. Supporters of the second of the original alternatives are declaring amongst themselves that they have a consensus for that version, despite multiple policy and guideline objections raised to it (thus the third option). I think it should be administratively assessed, because it's presently being treated as a head-counting vote instead of an analysis. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Kendall-K1. Pppery 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Kendall-K1 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Really need an administrator to close this one, as it's a contentious issue that has been discussed several times. Softlavender (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed. No admin required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Category talk:People of Jewish descent#Survey (Initiated 3005 days ago on 3 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{Done}}
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Eggishorn (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I initiated this RfC yesterday to deal with a situation already extensively debated on the Talk Page and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Over the past 30 hours the RfC has seen a great deal of attention, with twenty statements of opposition/support/neutrality with regard to the central question. It has reached the point where insults are being traded and the same of issues are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps it is too early to bring it to a close, but I feel that it has served its purpose. Would an experienced editor who is well versed in Wikipedia policy and determining consensus please take a look and, if they see fit, bring it to a close. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- This RfC has been open for just short of thirty days now, and I think that there is a clear consensus that has emerged. The conversation appears to have been exhausted, with no new posts for many days. It would be great if an experienced editor could take a look at this one and wrap it up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by User:Cenarium; that RfC was (Initiated 2947 days ago on 30 November 2016). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#RfC on empty log pages (Initiated 2944 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Amortias (T)(C) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Activity requirements (Initiated 2944 days ago on 3 December 2016)? Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 11#File:Eric Garner facebook.jpg, which has been open since early December 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Czar. --George Ho (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Request for comment on stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles (Initiated 2946 days ago on 1 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Tazerdadog (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#L'honorable - Standard offer request 2 (Initiated 2925 days ago on 22 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Beeblebrox. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Beeblebrox! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Lead image -- newer is not always better (Initiated 2949 days ago on 28 November 2016)? See the subsection Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Request for comment on lead image. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:North Korea#Should we use juche in the infobox? (Initiated 2946 days ago on 1 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by sport and politics. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#Rename articles (Initiated 2975 days ago on 2 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory/Archives/2017/January#Request for comment (Initiated 2930 days ago on 17 December 2016)? I am specifically requesting an Administrator's attention as the issue appears to be very contentious. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Sandstein. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Popular election#RFC: what sort of page should this be? (Initiated 2974 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- A formal close is not necessary for this RFC in my judgement. {{done}} <-- So the bot archives it Tazerdadog (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Periodic table#RFC: Should this table follow the IUPAC version for lanthanides, and actinides? (Initiated 2978 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Tazerdadog (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive286#Standard offer unblock request (Initiated 2932 days ago on 15 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator kindly assess the consensus there? (Initiated 2949 days ago on 28 November 2016) — JFG talk 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- 30 days old and de-listed. Thanks in advance! ―Mandruss ☎ 07:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Royal free city#RFC about the naming convention (Initiated 2951 days ago on 26 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Formal closure unnecessary. {{done}} <-- So the bot will archive Tazerdadog (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at Talk:Afro engineering#RfC: Where should the content of afro engineering be merged to? (Initiated 2954 days ago on 23 November 2016)? Thank you, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Wugapodes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin summarise this discussion and those referenced within it, and give it a nice hat? Full disclosure: I'm guilty of suggesting an outcome at the end of the discussion, as I only now thought it might be nice to have something a bit more official. Thanks. Samsara 02:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Cyberpower678 Pppery 20:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source (Initiated 3037 days ago on 1 September 2016)? I recommend a formal close per this comment about how this dispute has been ongoing for years:
Note past discussions Turns out this dispute goes back a few years :Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#Don_Matesz_mention, and most of the talk page discussion this year is about it, starting at Talk:Michael_Greger/Archive_1#SBM_source. It's been brought up at BLPN twice: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger and just today at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive238#Michael_Greger_-_claims_of_BLPSPS_violation. Given what I've found, there may be more as editors haven't been clearly acknowledging past discussions, as with this RfC.
Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- RFC has been archived from the article talkpage - at the point it was archived consensus was roughly twice in favour of the source *not* being a violation. Formal closure is not necessary at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've unarchived the discussion. I think a formal close would be helpful because as an RfC participant noted "Turns out this dispute goes back a few years". Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have proposed an approach to closure of this RFC
, and will close after a break of 36+ hours, unless there is significant disagreement with the approach proposed, or if someone else indicates an intention to close.~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)- {{done}} I did it because no one else seemed willing to.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved, experienced editor close the discussion? - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2943 days ago on 4 December 2016) {{Done}} — JFG talk 13:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone uninvolved should review the page for accurate consensus. George Ho (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Just for an update, I relisted the discussion because waiting time for a volunteer would be longer than I thought. I can still welcome the closure. George Ho (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Formal close, please. czar 17:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Salvidrim! (talk · contribs). Thank you for closing the discussion! Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2946 days ago on 1 December 2016). Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BU Rob13. Thank you for closing the TfD! Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There's 100+ open discussions, some well over two months old. The vast majority of these are easy closures. Would appreciate it if an admin could spend an hour or so clearing these out. Thanks! -FASTILY 08:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well it's more than an hour, that's for sure czar 18:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Seems to be {{done}} (down to two months). Pppery 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sciences Po#Sciences Po: a university? (Initiated 2957 days ago on 20 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks straightforward enough, but the closer should be aware that this has been the subject of this and that ANI threads already. I would have closed it, but that's pretty much a surefire way to be dragged in another ANI round. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#RfC: Suggested addition to the lead (Initiated 2971 days ago on 6 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Already {{done}}. Sunrise (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism (Initiated 2950 days ago on 27 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
After discussing with the closing admin for the AFD and DRV, could an editor close the straw vote and redirect the page? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: (Initiated 2943 days ago on 4 December 2016). I think an admin ought to close this one, after one AfD and a DRV recently. The topic is (suprisingly) very contentious. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)#RfC for above proposal (Initiated 2963 days ago on 14 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{close}} as no consensus for a merge at this time. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not an easy close, but (Initiated 2962 days ago on 15 November 2016). Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't see this was here, but I had relisted it for one more go I think after this note was posted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was relisted to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#Bushian. Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oops, I didn't see this was here, but I had relisted it for one more go I think after this note was posted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} as this was relisted it is no longer a request for closure. — xaosflux Talk 14:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Clinton Foundation#RFC: Caracol Industrial Park (Initiated 2987 days ago on 21 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus after 90 days (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons#RfC on Notability of D&D Standard Creatures (Initiated 2938 days ago on 9 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- A formal close seems unnecessary here. {{done}} <--For the bot Tazerdadog (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please formally close this RfC. The discussion is endless and needs to be settled. A neutral assessment of consensus would be appreciated.Polyamorph (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are seven days to go; there is WP:BLUDGEONing going on in the discussion section by one editor as is clear from the page stats but that can handled via SHUN. This list is way backed up so I reckon no will get to this before the natural period expires. When it does a formal close would be very useful, due to said bludgeoner. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- The RfC has today formally ended so closure is now needed. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I expect the formal challenge to be posted any time now. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Formal challenge placed now. I request three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure specifically to look at the sources quoted toward the end of the discussion to adjudicate whether it is reasonable to include a small passage in the discussion (one or two properly sourced sentences) on biotech, specifically pointing out that several sources lump biotech into Silicon Alley albeit as a minority viewpoint. I believe that as many times as I quoted these sources in the discussion, they were not seen clearly until too late, after !votes had been cast, since I was specifically not allowed to post these refs in the text of the article pending the discussion, where in plain sight would have provided fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by actual and potential !voters. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I expect the formal challenge to be posted any time now. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The RfC has today formally ended so closure is now needed. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2931 days ago on 16 December 2016) Can an uninvolved editor please close this request? -- Dane talk 06:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Tazerdadog (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Appears that opposes would overcome support. Needs closure. George Ho (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by proposer. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Needs closure from uninvolved editor.(Initiated 2976 days ago on 1 November 2016) Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- In looking it over, a closure at this point could only come out "no consensus". Of the options presented only two have enough support to consider; the first of these has about as much opposition as support (as of this writing), and the other has less support (despite lack of active opposition) than the option that has both noteworthy support and opposition. So, they kind of just cancel each other out, especially given that sometimes the same parties are supporting/opposing multiple options. The matter is one of editorial judgement, not policy or source analysis. An obvious option is also missing: that the matter should be left to editorial judgement on a per-article basis. It may be more practical to re-RfC this with combined and clarified options, and "advertise" the discussion neutrally at WP:VPP and if necessary WP:CENT. While the matter is "minor" in the sense of impact on an article, it potentially affects every bio article about a married person, except in cases where the marriage is still extant along with the parties to it and there was only one marriage. This means it would have major site-wide impact despite the narrowness of the quetsion, and thus that consensus should be quite clear before it is acted upon. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I concur with SMcCandlish here: this RfC has potential high impact and it needs much wider participation before a consensus can emerge (I count less than a dozen editors chiming in). Suggest a relisting with wider advertising. — JFG talk 21:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:South West Trains#Request For Comment about the service pattern table and extra content (Initiated 2978 days ago on 30 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} There are only three definite opinions expressed, and two conditional opinions. Per WP:CONSENSUS, this level of participation is not enough to override wider guidelines such as WP:NTT, especially given the complete lack of participation over the last 8 weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2942 days ago on 5 December 2016). Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2894 days ago on 22 January 2017) - {{Done}} Would an uninvolved user please close and archive it? The discussion is over and the conflict has been solved. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Stooges (album)#RfC: Should "rock and roll" be linked in the infobox? (Initiated 2947 days ago on 30 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I looked into closing this, but didn't feel comfortable based upon the information presented so I did a little research and added my own vote. I think I added enough material that this should be easier to close now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States involvement in regime change/Archive 1#RfC: Is the following paragraph appropriate for this article, "United States Involvement in Regime Change Actions? (Initiated 2979 days ago on 29 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed as no consensus. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus and formally close this proposal? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2978 days ago on 30 October 2016) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star Wars expanded universe#RfC: Is it relevant to group all non-canon EU material in a Legends subcategory? (Initiated 2956 days ago on 21 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Cerebellum (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2927 days ago on 20 December 2016). Appears snow to me. Thanks, John from Idegon (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Vladimir Putin#Citations about Putin (Initiated 2931 days ago on 16 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It began over a month ago, with the most recent vote on January 6th. May an experienced editor assess the consensus? AndrewOne (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm requesting closure, though closure is a little too soon. Nevertheless, I'm doing this just in case. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Probably should wait a couple more weeks. Hobit (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hobit, shall I relist the discussion, or can you volunteer or wait for a closer instead? George Ho (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Re-pinging @Hobit:, just in case it doesn't work. George Ho (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Sorry for the delay after the first ping, I just didn't have time until this weekend. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion needs closure. I see established consensus, but I'd rather request the closure by someone else. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by IP. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please close this discussion.--Broter (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Paul August ☎ 22:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Paul August (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Real Irish Republican Army#New IRA and RIRA (Initiated 2927 days ago on 20 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Generation Snowflake#RFC - opinion pieces as sources (Initiated 2917 days ago on 30 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The RfC tag is removed by bot, and the discussion is long enough to justify closure. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at MediaWiki talk:Sidebar#Add CentralAuth link to toolbox section in userspace (Initiated 2954 days ago on 23 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 47#RfC on including "false" in the lede (Initiated 2935 days ago on 12 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That has been done 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- The above has been reverted, would somebody else assess the situation again and write a more "proper" close? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, again. Sandstein 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- The above has been reverted, would somebody else assess the situation again and write a more "proper" close? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Wording in the lead (Initiated 2985 days ago on 23 October 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Legobot removed the RFC tags as stale on 21 November and then lowercase sigmabot III archived the discussion on 4 December without formal closure. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm marking this as {{done}}. As SlimVirgin noted in the RfC, the point is moot as the issue was resolved with this edit on 25 October. I don't see any point in going into the archives to mark the discussion as closed after all this time. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cinchona#Merge from Jesuit's bark (Initiated 2974 days ago on 3 November 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- {{done}} result was no consensus. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Cerebellum (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States presidential election in the District of Columbia, 2016#RfC: Should Donald Trump be included in the infobox? (Initiated 2927 days ago on 20 December 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Tazerdadog. Sam Walton (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Tazerdadog (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)