Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 25
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hair's breadth#Request for comment on prominence of "red cunt hair" in this article (Initiated 2548 days ago on 4 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2600 days ago on 13 October 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Proposal to re-simplify the constructors' standings tables. Thanks, Tvx1 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to take a look a this?Tvx1 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Tvx1 If you feel the consensus is for the change (or is obvious), there doesn't have to be a formal closure; you can just do the change. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- I prefer a formal close. I see a broad consensus, but since I proposed the change in the first place it would be a rather inappropriate if I’d claim a consenus in favor of it.Tvx1 22:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Tvx1 If you feel the consensus is for the change (or is obvious), there doesn't have to be a formal closure; you can just do the change. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Will anyone please look at this?Tvx1 20:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as consensus for the proposed change.- MrX 🖋 20:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2519 days ago on 2 January 2018) Please assess the consensus and close Talk:2017–18 North American winter#Proposed merge with 2017–18 North American cold wave. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC){{done}}
(Initiated 2504 days ago on 17 January 2018) Can an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus in this discussion, especially the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban proposal subsection? The OP has started a vote at the end but has agreed to allow someone to simply close the discussion as customary instead. Regards SoWhy 19:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Carter Page#Request for Comments on House Intelligence Committee Testimony and other sections (Initiated 2573 days ago on 9 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed as stale and moot. No comments for 2 months, and the section in question has been heavily edited since the RFC went stale. fish&karate 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include Dan Goodin's criticism of the DHS Joint Analysis Report? (Initiated 2571 days ago on 11 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} RFC dwindled to a halt with no clear consensus and was archived without being closed, to Talk:Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections/Archive_17#RfC:_Should_the_article_include_Dan_Goodin's_criticism_of_the_DHS_Joint_Analysis_Report?. I can't edit the archive so have made a note on the talk page. fish&karate 11:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes#RFC (Initiated 2563 days ago on 19 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 🖋 20:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Church of Satan#RfC about Church of Satan membership figures (Initiated 2563 days ago on 19 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as 1. No consensus; 2. Consensus is no; 3. Consensus is yes; 4. No consensus.- MrX 🖋 20:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Transit system icons in nav templates (Initiated 2564 days ago on 18 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 🖋 18:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Comma or parenthetic disambiguation for "small places" (Initiated 2559 days ago on 23 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 🖋 19:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fatima#Request for comment: Fatima or Fatimah (Initiated 2550 days ago on 2 December 2017)? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 🖋 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure if this requires a multi-close due to the length of discussion but anyway would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zoë_Quinn#RfC_-_infobox_image (Initiated 2547 days ago on 5 December 2017)? Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as A.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Meghan Markle#RfC on Ancestry Section (Initiated 2549 days ago on 3 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus for including a section on Markle's ancestry. No consensus on whether her ethnic background or 17th century ancestors should be included.- MrX 🖋 02:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bitcoin#Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal (Initiated 2549 days ago on 3 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus to include criminal use and no consensus to include the "bubbly" nature.- MrX 🖋 02:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Policy update proposal (Initiated 2544 days ago on 8 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2532 days ago on 20 December 2017) Could someone please assess the consensus in the RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#RfC_about_paid_use_of_administrator_tools when it hits 30 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Coffee. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2520 days ago on 1 January 2018) The topic of discussion is a largely populated category, so if all of the articles in it are going to be taken to AfD it will take additional time. I suppose the articles could also be speedy deleted but will let an admin use their judgement here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by fish and karate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2511 days ago on 10 January 2018) Clear consensus against use of expressions like "The app allows to download videos." Not so clear whether there's consensus have MoS say so explicitly, just use it as an example of what not to do, or say nothing at all about it (though that last would be contrary to the consensus against "allows to"). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2522 days ago on 30 December 2017) Only one comment, in the last 2 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2524 days ago on 28 December 2017) No comments for 16 days.AdA&D 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2608 days ago on 5 October 2017) Would an experienced editor assess whether there is a consensus and this proposal can be closed? Thanks! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2515 days ago on 6 January 2018) Please review the consensus and close Talk:Memoirs_of_a_Murderer_(album)#Requested_move_6_January_2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Energy East#RfC on contents of pipeline (Initiated 2554 days ago on 28 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2534 days ago on 18 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cary Grant#RFC on Inclusion of Infobox? Thanks, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Alex Shih. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2532 days ago on 20 December 2017) Please disposition Talk:Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017#Objections to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "disposition"? Makes no sense to me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Redrose64:, please assess the consensus and close. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#RfC: Russian metro line article titles (Initiated 2543 days ago on 9 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Appears {{already done}} and implemented with this requested move Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2514 days ago on 7 January 2018) The Armenian Genocide is a contentious topic and is covered by WP:ARBAA2, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor close this RFC. Billhpike (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2522 days ago on 30 December 2017) This is a RfC within a broad subject that can often be contentious. Nevertheless, it appears that this RfC has reached a consensus of Wikipedia editors. Would an experienced editor assess the consensus and close this RfC? Thanks. OtterAM (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on forming possessive form of singular names, MOS advice simplification (Initiated 2540 days ago on 12 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#RFC on lead (Initiated 2521 days ago on 31 December 2017)? Casprings (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Request for comment on achievements and awards boxes (Initiated 2558 days ago on 24 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates (Initiated 2591 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2574 days ago on 8 November 2017) Should the following archival documentary be included as an external link at Carleton Knights football? "Carleton Football Highlights". Carleton College Archives. 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnnlaxer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as stale and no consensus reached. fish&karate 11:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Popoff#RfC over BLP Lead's use of "fraud" (Initiated 2551 days ago on 1 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC on advocacy for black gun owners (Initiated 2546 days ago on 6 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2530 days ago on 22 December 2017) This has run its course, with a clear consensus. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed by User:Winged Blades of Godric. fish&karate 14:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2535 days ago on 17 December 2017) This has been a contentious subject, but seems to have run its course, but...could someone with experience and not involved check it? auntieruth (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on naming of Chinese railway line articles (Initiated 2571 days ago on 11 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jerusalem#RFC on Jerusalem and US recognition (Initiated 2546 days ago on 6 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Seconded. It's been a long RfC, and I think it's time for it to close. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2551 days ago on 1 December 2017) Will an uninvolved editor please close this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2510 days ago on 11 January 2018) This is a RS inquiry that has only been open 24 hours, so I hesitate to come here, but I think is pretty cut and dry (plus, in 3 more days it will have cycled into the archives so there doesn't seem to be a benefit in waiting a full month as with a RfC). Could an experienced editor review it to determine if there is or is not a consensus that a government agency's own website is a reliable source for quotes directly attributed to that agency? Thanks, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I object to this request for closure. More input is needed to gain a fair consensus from the community. 24 hours only? No. It does not seem so cut and dry based on the few responses so far. As they say, Wikipedia has no deadline. What is the rush? Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It does get auto-archived in three days, though, so - given the backlog - by the time someone gets around to this it probably will have received all the feedback it's likely to receive. And, since this is really quite a minor point (should a reliability tag appear at the end of one sentence in a single article) it might not necessarily be a good expenditure of energy to drag this out for too long? Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Istvaeonic languages#RFC. Merge? Split? Re-name? (Initiated 2544 days ago on 8 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Populating article descriptions magic word (Initiated 2544 days ago on 8 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2520 days ago on 1 January 2018) Seems to have run its course. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Current members of the United States Senate#RFC: Which columns of information should be included in the list? (Initiated 2563 days ago on 19 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should Wikipedians be allowed to use community granted tools in exchange for money? (Initiated 2581 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to have been archived without being closed. Not sure what the proper procedure is here. AdA&D ★ 21:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Archiving bots usually don't care whether a discussion is ongoing or not, nor if it is formally closed or not, what they generally look for is the time elapsed since the last post to that thread being more than x hours or days ago. In the case of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which is a high-traffic page, threads are archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs) after 14 days of inactivity. In this case, the last post to the thread was at 16:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC) as far as I can make out; the thread was archived at 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC), slightly over 14 days later.
- One archiving bot - ClueBot III (talk · contribs) - can be configured to only archive threads that are marked in some way; for instance, here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, the bot will archive any thread which contains one or more of the following strings: "{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}"; "{{resolved"; "{{Resolved"; "{{done"; "{{Done"; "{{DONE"; "{{already done"; "{{Already done"; "{{not done"; "{{Not done"; "{{close"; or "{{Close".
- But did the discussion at VPP really need closure? See the top of this page, first pool ball "Many discussions do not need formal closure and do not need to be listed here." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{close}} - doesn't require closure, has gone into archive due to no comments since 16 January - can be found here for reference. fish&karate 09:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved close of this RfC. Thorough knowledge of NPOV and BLP policies would help. Thanks. (Initiated 2517 days ago on 4 January 2018) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by GoldenRing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Classical music#The image in the lead (Initiated 2543 days ago on 9 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Useful idiot#Request for Comment on Oxford English Dictionary (Initiated 2542 days ago on 10 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#RfC Yousef Jabareen (Initiated 2542 days ago on 10 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names (Initiated 2541 days ago on 11 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - this one was done and the consensus implemented weeks ago, but I've formally closed the RFC. Fish+Karate 14:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2513 days ago on 8 January 2018) Please assess the consensus and close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#RFC about album years in navigation templates. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Drmies {{done}} it Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital#RfC for 130 Jewish studies scholars (Initiated 2538 days ago on 14 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slobodan Praljak#False statements, bad reading of the references, incompleteness (Initiated 2537 days ago on 15 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
This survey is not a formal RfC but would require a close by an uninvolved editor. (Initiated 2494 days ago on 27 January 2018). — JFG talk 23:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion wasn't officially an RfC, but ended up following the structure of one and I think it could benefit from a close. (Initiated 2525 days ago on 27 December 2017) Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)#Should The Man in the High Castle (TV series) be described as science fiction? (Initiated 2523 days ago on 29 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:The Harvard Crimson#RfC on categories? (Initiated 2511 days ago on 10 January 2018) Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A proposal to permanently semi-protect the Template space (Initiated 2531 days ago on 21 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Roy Moore#RFC about the lead (Initiated 2517 days ago on 4 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2538 days ago on 14 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects#Request for comments on MoS shortcut redirect categorization? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 19:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2531 days ago on 21 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area#Request for Comment: Description of the Quarantine Area in the Lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2531 days ago on 21 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A proposal to permanently semi-protect the Template space? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 23:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2530 days ago on 22 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Game of Thrones#Should Game of Thrones be in the LGBT-related category? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2526 days ago on 26 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#"See also" section and navigation boxes? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2523 days ago on 29 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The New York Times#Should obituaries in the New York Times not be counted toward notability for people that lived in the New York Metropolitan area? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2523 days ago on 29 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration/Archive 1#RfC on Ukraine policy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywrch (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2531 days ago on 21 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 144#Three Strikes Rule for AfC submissions and reviews? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 16:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2521 days ago on 31 December 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zwarte Piet#RfC about the character's visual state? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2520 days ago on 1 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Times of Israel#RfC on infobox? The RfC is about the type of infobox template that should be used. Thanks, OtterAM (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2519 days ago on 2 January 2018) No further comments since 15 January. 9 votes to 5 by my count, which seems pretty unequivocal. However, the final voter asked that I "tone down the WP:BLUDGEONING" and I have to admit that he was spot on, so I'd rather take a step back and let someone uninvolved make the final decision. nagualdesign 01:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Logentry-patrol-patrol? Thanks, Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ssjhowarthisawesome: What consensus? There is no sign that a WP:RFC has ever been held on that page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64:, the consensus is to remove "revision $4 of".Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ssjhowarthisawesome: There has been only one edit to that talk page - you are the only participant, and despite WP:SILENCE, that is not consensus. Was an RfC concerning this interface page held anywhere else? If so, that is the discussion to request closure for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64:, the consensus is to remove "revision $4 of".Ssjhowarthisawesome (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}} as explained above, no discussion is there to close. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2519 days ago on 2 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Darwin (operating system)#RfC About inclusion of Version/Release History? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC) {{resolved}} -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2512 days ago on 9 January 2018) Frietjes (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2518 days ago on 3 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Unite the Right rally#RfC: Should the article include mention of Trump/Pence signs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2514 days ago on 7 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests/Archive 1#Should the 'Damage to public property' include this material? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - RFC had been archived but not closed. I've done that and noted the result on the main talk page of the article. Fish+Karate 11:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2511 days ago on 10 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Knights of Columbus#RfC on the Lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, closed as no consensus due to being a mess. Fish+Karate 12:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2510 days ago on 10 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 3#RfC: How should The Satanic Temple be labeled by the lead sentence of its article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2510 days ago on 11 January 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 70#When are additional voices eligible for inclusion in voice actor articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - had already been copied across to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga and closed by MizukaS. Fish+Karate 10:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2507 days ago on 14 January 2018) This needs an experienced, neutral editor to close. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- Be warned that the question asked, and the question people were !voting on, is not necessarily the same thing here.Mike Peel (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- There are two clear !voting areas:
- so "the question people were !voting on" is not too correct, that should be at least plural: "the questions people were !voting on". Preferably, I had seen no warnings ("Be warned that...") in the closure request, makes it seem more difficult than it is imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 04:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2505 days ago on 16 January 2018) A complex discussion, which has now tailed off. There appears to be consensus on some key elements of the discussion; an experienced admin close may be able to thread a needle through the various viewpoints. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2499 days ago on 22 January 2018) Could a neutral editor please assess consensus? Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2473 days ago on 17 February 2018) Could an admin or Rfc-experienced editor please assess whether this Rfc should be closed based on no prior discussion on the Talk page? This Rfc seems highly premature; there should at least be an attempt at discussion, first. My first time here, but it seems to me I've seen the phrase "procedural close" a few times before, but I can't find it now; am just wondering if that's a rational basis for an immediate closure here, with no prejudice on starting another one later, if a discussion ensues but deadlocks. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I see now that the initiator's (Etzedek24 (talk · contribs)) first edit was 23 Oct 2017, which probably explains this; they probably were rummaging around in the labyrinth of guidelines and bumped into WP:RFC. Anyway, once the closure request above is disposed of (one way or the other) maybe someone could leave a friendly note on their Talk page about proper procedures, or I can. Let me know. Mathglot (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Just wondering, perhaps this is really a WP:RSN matter? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: No doubt, content-wise, but I wasn't addressing the content of the request, merely the appropriateness of going from zero to Rfc with no discussion. Is this the right place for that? Or should the Rfc simply run it course, now that it's been started? Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Just wondering, perhaps this is really a WP:RSN matter? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product#RfC about rolling back before socks edited the page (Initiated 2496 days ago on 25 January 2018)? There is a unanimous consensus in support of the nominator's proposal. Part of the proposal is to "fully protect the article for 6 months or longer". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} applied extended confirmed protection for six months and rolled back as per the clear consensus. Fish+Karate 13:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- The RFC initiator has decided my close was not right as I didn't give him the full-protection he wanted, so he's reverted my rolling back of the article and created a second RFC asking the exact same question. It would be appreciated if a second admin could look at this one. NB - article is still EC protected, not sure whether I should remove that or not. Fish+Karate 14:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see the real problem there with the close (though not an admin), I reverted the change as reverting changes is not how one challenges a close. I really don't know why he wants full protection so much.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Appreciated. Marked as done again, because on reflection the original RFC is actually closed still. Fish+Karate 15:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see the real problem there with the close (though not an admin), I reverted the change as reverting changes is not how one challenges a close. I really don't know why he wants full protection so much.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- The RFC initiator has decided my close was not right as I didn't give him the full-protection he wanted, so he's reverted my rolling back of the article and created a second RFC asking the exact same question. It would be appreciated if a second admin could look at this one. NB - article is still EC protected, not sure whether I should remove that or not. Fish+Karate 14:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Back to the Future#Plot reversion (Initiated 2503 days ago on 18 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings#Request for comment (Initiated 2502 days ago on 19 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion has no activity since the 15th, and the result seems obvious to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Any volunteers wanna help close this discussion? Given the contentious nature of the move request, it might be wise to have at least three editors assess the discussion. As I am uninvolved (and a page mover) I could assist in the closure, but I definitively shouldn't do it alone. SkyWarrior 02:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am reading the discussion, if there's any need for co-closer, just ping me. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm..I may be able to assist too...But, the close don't look like to be a very difficult job:)~ Winged BladesGodric 07:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ammarpad and Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for volunteering. I'm going to keep this open for a little bit longer in case anyone else wants to assist. SkyWarrior 18:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not intending to cast any aspersions here, and the good-faith offers are appreciated, but none of these three are admins, one of them appears to be 18 years old, and two of them have been on Wikipedia less than three years (and the third one less than five years). This is a complex case that has had 14 prior RMs and an MRV. I suggest that we need a more experienced panel to close this – a panel composed (at least primarily) of admins. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ammarpad and Winged Blades of Godric: Thanks for volunteering. I'm going to keep this open for a little bit longer in case anyone else wants to assist. SkyWarrior 18:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- Discussion has been {{close}}. Any questions should be directed at either me, Primefac, or TonyBallioni. SkyWarrior 19:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?
(Initiated 2502 days ago on 19 January 2018) Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2480 days ago on 10 February 2018) This has been going for two weeks and folks have stopped !voting. [redacted stupidity] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- [redacted stupidity] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)requests for closure are preferred to be neutrally worded.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm...@MjolnirPants:--I don't think that a snow-call is highly-appropriate in the circumstances and it might be better to wait for a few more days to evaluate the stagnation of the discussion and/or new participation.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for a snow close; If you check the page, I explicitly denied the possibility of a snow close. But it's still quite an obvious close, and folks seem to have stopped !voting (the last one was almost four days ago). By the way, next time I make commentary like that, you may feel free to treat it the same exact way I did with this edit, though your method was rather more considerate. I'd have split it up myself (and posted it as a comment near the end of the RfC, instead of here) except I'm tired and therefore, temporarily stupid. At least I hope it's temporary... <cue the ominous music> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: It's been 4 more days without any !votes or even commentary. The last !vote was a week ago, do you think that's long enough? (Serious question; I'm not being at all sarcastic and will defer to your judgement here.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- Agree. We need closure so we can move on. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: It's been 4 more days without any !votes or even commentary. The last !vote was a week ago, do you think that's long enough? (Serious question; I'm not being at all sarcastic and will defer to your judgement here.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for a snow close; If you check the page, I explicitly denied the possibility of a snow close. But it's still quite an obvious close, and folks seem to have stopped !voting (the last one was almost four days ago). By the way, next time I make commentary like that, you may feel free to treat it the same exact way I did with this edit, though your method was rather more considerate. I'd have split it up myself (and posted it as a comment near the end of the RfC, instead of here) except I'm tired and therefore, temporarily stupid. At least I hope it's temporary... <cue the ominous music> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how much longer the merge discussion should stay open. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Good point. That looks more than ready to be closed. (But it's a touchy topic, so I don't feel qualified to do it myself.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section? This RfC was only opened two days ago (by myself), but I feel the consensus is so overwhelming that I am justified in seeking to have this discussion closed so that we can move on. (Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Objection. The person making the request is the person who started the RfC. I have not participated in it, myself -- because I think it is not a valid RfC. We are asked to choose between two versions selected by the OP; why does that individual get to determine the choices open to other editors? I agree the RfC can be closed -- on grounds of being invalid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- A: I’m entitled to request closure (unless someone can point to a policy I’m not familiar with that proves otherwise).
- B: (Note: edited) I don’t even understand the second objection. This is how RfCs are used in dispute resolution over content. Two or more versions are presented, and other users remain entitled to suggest alternatives. This has already been explained to you by another user on the article talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note, I've ended the RfC per WP:SNOW. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- And I've reverted that, because I'm sure you know better... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Nomoskedasticity: Yes I do know better, because I've read WP:RFCEND. You may find the following useful: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{[]rfc}} template." L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't "withdrawn" it, though, have you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I have withdrawn the RfC question by removing the template, as described above. I'm not going to respond here anymore because it's a waste of my time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- You haven't "withdrawn" it, though, have you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Nomoskedasticity: Yes I do know better, because I've read WP:RFCEND. You may find the following useful: "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{[]rfc}} template." L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- And I've reverted that, because I'm sure you know better... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note, I've ended the RfC per WP:SNOW. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} per my message to you at ANI. Swarm ♠ 17:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Swarm--I came here to see if this had been taken care of already. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Open since Feb 4. This is an easy one, consensus is prety clear, but would change policy so a formal close from an uninvolved user is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- Let 4 more pass:)~ Winged BladesGodric 03:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I felt that this RfC could have been worded better. Usually in RfCs, "no" means opposition to change, whereas in this RfC, the way the question was worded causes "no" to mean a support of change. While this may look like an easy close at first glance, I would still advise prospective closers to read the RfC carefully. Mz7 (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Fish+Karate 13:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
This closure challenge on WP:AN has run its course and the tone of the discussion is moving in the wrong direction. Could an uninvolved administrator assess if the original closure needs to be reopened? BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Discussion has moved of WP:AN and into archive, so this does not need to be closed. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sander.v.Ginkel (Initiated 2476 days ago on 14 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 in science#RfC about sources for new entries (Initiated 2502 days ago on 19 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Request For Comment about ranking charts on music articles (Initiated 2497 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2510 days ago on 11 January 2018) Would an experienced editor (ideally someone with template editor rights as the page is template protected) assess the consensus at Template_talk:Infobox_venue#Tenants_field please? Iffy★Chat -- 12:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Abkhazia#New RFC (Initiated 2509 days ago on 12 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed date, is initiated 12 january 2018 Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 05:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur)#RfC - Wolfe on cancer (Initiated 2504 days ago on 17 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 06:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Carolina Nairne#WP:LASTNAME (Initiated 2504 days ago on 17 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 06:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Seth MacFarlane#Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018 (Initiated 2498 days ago on 23 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 15:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Could any editor or admin do a procedural close on withdrawn Rfc Talk:Medri_Bahri#rfc_2C06B8D? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Iffy★Chat -- 12:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Satanic Temple/Archive 3#RfC regarding Disambiguation (Initiated 2497 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1#RfC on decision to let Weinstein story go (Initiated 2492 days ago on 29 January 2018)? Thanks,BC1278 (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278
Hasn't been edited in over a year. Can an uninvolved editor please close this now? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging @GamerPro64: and @Juhachi: who look after WP:FTC. Fish+Karate 11:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I already failed that topic, per my comment on the nom. I even added it to the milestones on the talk page of the main article. And for future reference, only I or GamerPro64 can close FTC nominations. --十八 12:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} for bot's benefit Fish+Karate 14:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I was working my way backwards through the que of new pages and found this mess. The page was created in 2004 and still being discussed for deletion? I don't know what to do with it. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 15:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): Not sure what you're asking us to do. The redirect (which had looked like this for the last six months) was taken to RfD just 14 minutes before you posted here. Are you asking us to close that RfD almost seven days earlier than it normally would be closed? If so, why? Alternatively, if you wish to comment on what should be done with that redirect, please do so at the RfD itself, not here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- 14 minutes?! I probably submitted my request here on this page from another browser window that I had opened for longer than 1/2 hour before the page was nominated for RfD. This page, Trash metal had not been patrolled for 14 years and was the very last new page in the que; I try to work from the back of the que in new page patrolling because most editors prefer the front of the que. Of course I don't want to close the RfD before seven days have passed, the possibility of another editor going to the end of the new page que so close to same time as I did then and nominating it for deletion is pretty astounding. Sorry to trouble you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 12:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Putting {{resolved}} for the archival bot. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- 14 minutes?! I probably submitted my request here on this page from another browser window that I had opened for longer than 1/2 hour before the page was nominated for RfD. This page, Trash metal had not been patrolled for 14 years and was the very last new page in the que; I try to work from the back of the que in new page patrolling because most editors prefer the front of the que. Of course I don't want to close the RfD before seven days have passed, the possibility of another editor going to the end of the new page que so close to same time as I did then and nominating it for deletion is pretty astounding. Sorry to trouble you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐ ✉ 12:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
A short merge discussion stalled with no consensus about 9 months ago. SueDonem (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Fish+Karate 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: Thank you! Is it preferred that a third-party removes the template from the tops of the two articles? Or is it fine if I do? SueDonem (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I removed it; there really is no great formality about merge discussions, so you can remove the templates, and there is no great reason for a formal closure either :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! SueDonem (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- I removed it; there really is no great formality about merge discussions, so you can remove the templates, and there is no great reason for a formal closure either :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: Thank you! Is it preferred that a third-party removes the template from the tops of the two articles? Or is it fine if I do? SueDonem (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Donald Trung's emoji signatures (Initiated 2456 days ago on 6 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} - closed and archived. Primefac (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:Seymour High School (Indiana)#Gymnasium (Initiated 2449 days ago on 13 March 2018)? Thanks, IndyNotes (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}}, this is for RFC closures and other contentious issues. The discussion above has been open for barely over 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
An RM discussion got converted to an RFC here, and discussion has tapered off. The current conversation is complex, and the RM/RFC confusion isn't helping. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have re-worded this closure request to be more brief and neutrally worded. Iffy★Chat -- 10:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Fish+Karate 12:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White House Correspondents' Association#RFC on Correspondent Section (Initiated 2530 days ago on 22 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - had already been merged anyway. Fish+Karate 12:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Rfc: Change default <math> to be inline (Initiated 2484 days ago on 6 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#RfC: What number of line-up changes should constitute a separate "list of members" subpage? (Initiated 2484 days ago on 6 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Canada#RFC: National anthem (Initiated 2482 days ago on 8 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors are debating a smallish proposed addition to the History section. We would appreciate a Close from an uninvolved editor.– Lionel(talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
| collapsing per "Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question." Any extra comments should be made at the discussion. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- {{not done}} - one of the main parties involved has been banned from school-related editing, the RFC is stale and poorly formatted, and has gone to archives. Fish+Karate 16:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion to assess if article should be merged. Open since 30 January 2018. Would an uninvolved, experienced editor please assess the consensus? Thank you. (Initiated 2491 days ago on 30 January 2018) -- Begoon 11:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, now needs to be merged. Fish+Karate 16:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on use of "crore" (Initiated 2497 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not done. Discussion on this matter still ongoing. The latest comment in this thread is dated 19:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC). I'd wait at least another week on this to be sure the discussion has actually concluded. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Removed not done template since the bot archives the discussion if thet template is present. I'm fine with waiting a week before assessing the consensus. I've restored this close request from the archive to this board as it can be easily forgotten if it is moved to the archives. Cunard (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
{{done}} No new discussion in almost two weeks, so I've closed it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 135#Worldwide (WW) release date in infobox (Initiated 2490 days ago on 31 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - moved it back to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Worldwide_(WW)_release_date_in_infobox to give the closed RFC some visibility. Fish+Karate 12:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row#RfC: Police Investigation and Bullying/abuse allegations (Initiated 2517 days ago on 4 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Belarus#RfC on the removal of transliterated and Russian names (Initiated 2491 days ago on 30 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rasta Rasivhenge#RfCs on categorisation (Initiated 2491 days ago on 30 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018#RFC (Initiated 2489 days ago on 1 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Could an admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#Krazy_Kids? (Initiated 2478 days ago on 12 February 2018) Iffy★Chat -- 13:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} It's been relisted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Could an admin please asses the concensus at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2018_February_2#File:Evangeline_Lilly_as_Wasp_in_Ant-Man_and_the_Wasp.jpg?(Initiated 2496 days ago on 25 January 2018)—TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor please formally close a 2016 merge discussion where a close has been contentious; discussion at Talk:Exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter#Merger?. (Initiated 3129 days ago on 1 May 2016)Klbrain (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 201#Can we clarify what does and does not constitute 'strong national ties'? (Initiated 2503 days ago on 18 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Cunard: I don't really see a formal 'RFC' here that requires closure, as such, just a lot of meandering discussion. Fish+Karate 13:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fish and karate Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_201#Re-deprecate_and_merge_the_ENGVAR-related_templates_that_do_not_serve_an_encyclopedic_purpose this is the actual rfc Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - thanks @Galobtter:. Now closed. Fish+Karate 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Fish and karate Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_201#Re-deprecate_and_merge_the_ENGVAR-related_templates_that_do_not_serve_an_encyclopedic_purpose this is the actual rfc Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Coachella Valley Church#RfC about the neutrality of this article (Initiated 2498 days ago on 23 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Real News Update#RfC: claims of news stories ignored by the media (Initiated 2485 days ago on 5 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 146#DYK Admin role RFC (Initiated 2479 days ago on 11 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - I copied it out of the archive first, see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_Admin_role_RFC. Fish+Karate 12:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2473 days ago on 17 February 2018) Clear consensus. No new input since 8 March, and only one (my own) since 27 February. Scolaire (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section? The consensus is now only more overwhelming than when I last requested closure. (Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:B'Tselem/Archive 2#RfC: employee incidents and IDF spokesperson (Initiated 2482 days ago on 8 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
It has been ten months since the reassessment was opened and eight months since the last comment was made. This is far beyond the expected timescale of a good article community reassessment. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Bilorv: - I've posted to Wikipedia:Good_article_help asking for someone who knows the process to close the reassessment. Fish+Karate 12:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative for Germany#Request for comment (Initiated 2498 days ago on 23 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nunes memo/Archive 2#RFC on Russian Bot Support (Initiated 2493 days ago on 28 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:COI#RfC - on template removal guidance (Initiated 2493 days ago on 28 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment (Initiated 2481 days ago on 9 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Cunard: I'm reviewing now and will close shortly. GiantSnowman 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: - do you need some assistance? Fish+Karate 11:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: it's been closed - forgot to mark this, apologies. GiantSnowman 11:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: Awesome, thank you. Fish+Karate 11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: it's been closed - forgot to mark this, apologies. GiantSnowman 11:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: - do you need some assistance? Fish+Karate 11:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by GiantSnowman Fish+Karate 11:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at this RFC (Initiated 2474 days ago on 16 February 2018)diff Thanks. Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Proposed IBAN with clear consensus needs to be closed please. The thread looks long but it's only this individual subsection that needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor, so that we can continue the dispute resolution process ASAP. Swarm ♠ 21:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Swarm Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Criteria for inclusion in Births and Deaths sections of Wikipedia date articles (Initiated 2493 days ago on 28 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Can't do this one, I participated in the discussion. Fish+Karate 11:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to speedy close this RfC. A RfC with the exact same language ended ten days ago with 4 out of the 5 respondents in favor of keeping the language. The lone user in opposition (who has a history of rejecting clear consensus in disruptive ways) created this current RfC. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Iffy★Chat -- 15:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? (Initiated 2489 days ago on 1 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- FYI, this has been moved to the archive already - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_141#RFC:_Is_“(anime)”_a_suitable_disambiguator?. No comments in several days. Still needs a closing statement though. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @ [1] --slakr\ talk / 04:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#RfC about Deleted edits in January 5 and 6, 2018 (Initiated 2489 days ago on 1 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Iffy★Chat -- 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Would an experienced editor (preferably an administrator) assess the consensus at the "Economic appeasement" RfC at Talk:Appeasement? (Initiated 2474 days ago on 16 February 2018) --GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Good evening, it's been over a week since I requested the close. Just wondering if this is normal, and if there is anything I can do to help move it forward. Best, GPRamirez5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for close (Economic Appeasement). Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, please don't use pings to sign your comments, use four tildes, ~~~~, so a time and date stamp is provided by the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Will do!-GPRamirez5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GPRamirez5 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, please don't use pings to sign your comments, use four tildes, ~~~~, so a time and date stamp is provided by the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for close (Economic Appeasement). Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:Spinningspark (for the bot) Iffy★Chat -- 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please close this RfC when they are able. Conversation has died down, and it should be pretty straightforward. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC) (Initiated 2472 days ago on 18 February 2018)
Doing...- Strike that.Too much work, too less time and sporadic internet connection.~ Winged BladesGodric 02:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:Winged Blades of Godric (for the bot). Iffy★Chat -- 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Polyandry#RFC_on_polyandry_in_Islam (Initiated 2466 days ago on 24 February 2018)? Thanks! Nblund talk 18:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} AdA&D ★ 22:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC).
Could an admin please assess the consensus here? (Initiated 2473 days ago on 17 February 2018) Aspects (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Explicit Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dorothy Tarrant#RfC about Emeritus/Emerita (Initiated 2487 days ago on 3 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC) {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A 2016 merge proposal on a contentious topic, with lots of views expressed but discussion now quiet.(Initiated 3043 days ago on 27 July 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs) 23:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - @Klbrain:, the merge just needs doing now. Fish+Karate 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Racial views of Donald Trump - a massive feud largely about general editor conduct and not related to NPOV issues. Can an uninvolved admin close some of the offtopic sections? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Now archived and moot. Fish+Karate 09:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this discussion (Initiated 2481 days ago on 9 February 2018). North America1000 22:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
RFC about use of a word in the introduction. I think may not have been filed properly, but got broad participation.(Initiated 2477 days ago on 13 February 2018) --Pharos (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this discussion (Initiated 2441 days ago on 20 March 2018) Has been open over a week and received plenty of participation. I believe the discussion has come to a consensus, but is a contentious issue, so need someone uninvolved to close.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#RfC about whether to include 'MP' as a post-nominal in lead paragraph (Initiated 2460 days ago on 2 March 2018)? Thanks. --Neve~selbert 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done }} --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Could an experienced editor please close this? (Initiated 2469 days ago on 21 February 2018) –dlthewave ☎ 13:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- A very experienced editor, or even better, a very experienced admin, with absolutely no POV-ties to any firearms-related articles. Along with the closure, a consensus, or lack-thereof, will need to be determined, which will not be particularly easy or straight-forward, given the way the RfC is written or the way in which many of the responses have been entered in the straw-poll. This close will potentially affect some very contentious content, as well as groups of editors with very divided opinions. FYI. But just the same, the sooner the better. Thanks - theWOLFchild 22:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}. @Thewolfchild: I am hopeful I explained the closure well enough to preclude any angry mobs. Fish+Karate 13:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Fish and karate: Thanks for taking this on. It is no simple task, so your efforts are appreciated. - theWOLFchild 13:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2470 days ago on 20 February 2018) -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Requesting closure of this discussion (Initiated 2475 days ago on 15 February 2018). Open for a month with substantial participation. One oppose !vote.--Carwil (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Requesting closure of discussion without consensus found after being open over 2 times longer than the 7 day requirement for Requested Move discussions. Closure of this will assist our project (WP:CRM - recently created) to continue to move forward with more important matters. Thank you in advance! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs). He noted it was a non-admin closure but I would endorse his close. Fish+Karate 12:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:High Point High School#RfC about including a map of the school's attendance boundary (Initiated 2491 days ago on 30 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This article has a long history of contention over common-name. I am hoping an uninvolved editor can assess the consensus. (Initiated 2475 days ago on 15 February 2018) Cesdeva (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This hasn't drawn comment for a few days now, and is basically 3 weeks into a 1 week discussion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (Initiated 2447 days ago on 15 March 2018)
(Initiated 2454 days ago on 8 March 2018) Would an experienced and uninvolved closer kindly assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: "useful fool"? Many thanks. — JFG talk 05:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Needs a WP:SNOW close; several editors from both sides have asked for such. --Jayron32 14:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: (Initiated 2427 days ago on 4 April 2018) {{done}} (as an NAC snow close) --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2461 days ago on 1 March 2018) Could an uninvolved editor close the discussion, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as no consensus. - MrX 🖋 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2461 days ago on 1 March 2018) Adding {{initiated}}. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
An easy close, but would be best if an outside person closes it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} A clear consensus for Version 1, so I closed it on that basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2451 days ago on 11 March 2018) Request uninvolved close. Strong knowledge of BLP policy is requested as some editors assert BLP implications. Not an RfC, no activity for 5 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: Guerillero is working on this. Have pinged him at the bottom of the RFC. Fish+Karate 09:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as no consensus. - MrX 🖋 17:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2461 days ago on 1 March 2018) Added {{Initiated}} --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as no consensus. - MrX 🖋 17:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2453 days ago on 9 March 2018) Experienced closer requested for a "straw poll" regarding the wording of the first sentence of the Mumia Abu-Jamal article. Initiated 30 days ago, no activity for 13 days. Marteau (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as consensus to include the proposed wording. - MrX 🖋 18:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) Could an administrator or an experienced editor please assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2453 days ago on 9 March 2018) Could an administrator or an experienced editor please assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2459 days ago on 3 March 2018) It's still a little bit until 30 days, so just posting ahead of time in case any interested admin feels like getting a head-start on sorting through things before the 30 day mark. This RfC could use an admin close (potential to be contentious in a discretionary sanction topic), especially one familiar with WP:PSCI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
| Hatting per "Please ensure that your request for a close is brief and neutrally worded. Please include a link to the discussion. Do not use this board to continue the discussion in question." |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
(Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) - The discussion has been inactive for 15 days. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2480 days ago on 10 February 2018) - The discussion has been inactive for 8 days. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 17:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) - The discussion has been inactive for 9 days. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 17:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC).
(Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) Template expired and discussion seems to have died down. Thank you. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC).
RfC was listed, expired, reformatted & relisted, delisted. Now needs closure. Thanks! NPalgan2 (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Talk:List of electronic cigarette brands#Proposed indefinite extended confirmed protection or indefinite semi-protection (Initiated 2455 days ago on 7 March 2018)? I am requesting that an admin close the discussion because if there is consensus for the proposal, admin tools will be needed to implement it. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, but this should have just been sent to WP:RFPP. Fish+Karate 09:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster/Archive 3#RfC on reception section vs integrated layout (Initiated 2480 days ago on 10 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}} RFC has been archived and is moot. Fish+Karate 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Stalin#RfC (Initiated 2478 days ago on 12 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Holocaust denial#RfC on removal of phrase "conspiracy theory" from lede without consensus, leaving sources abandoned. (Initiated 2476 days ago on 14 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk#RfC - how to structure the article? (Initiated 2474 days ago on 16 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aaron Rodgers#RfC Regarding Danica Patrick (Initiated 2472 days ago on 18 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who#RfC: Infobox image (Initiated 2466 days ago on 24 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers#RFC BFC (Initiated 2457 days ago on 5 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
File:Ronald Skirth (1897-1977) seated.jpg
(Initiated 2438 days ago on 24 March 2018) Could someobody go to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 24 and close the File:Ronald Skirth (1897-1977) seated.jpg discussion. It's been waiting to be closed for a couple of weeks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Cryptic. Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Would an experienced editor or administrator please close this discussion? Thank you. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 21:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have re-worded this request to be neutrally worded. Iffy★Chat -- 09:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe there was anything non-neutral about my original post, and I don't think you should reword other editor's comments without informing them. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Alsee (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2464 days ago on 26 February 2018) Would an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting? Thanks! AdA&D ★ 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Raw Power#RfC: Should the source of this review be credited in the ratings template as the newspaper/publication that published it or the catchall title of the music column in which it was featured? (Initiated 2497 days ago on 24 January 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}} with 2 participants, no real consensus and no discussion of note, I don't think this is suitable for a formal close. Mdann52 (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Coco Austin#Request for comment on birth announcement (Initiated 2480 days ago on 10 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Alina Zagitova#Country represented in infobox (Initiated 2465 days ago on 25 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Winter War#Request for comment on citations in the lead (Initiated 2457 days ago on 5 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lists of earthquakes#RfC: Are lists of earthquake aftershocks ever notable? (Initiated 2455 days ago on 7 March 2018)? There is a request for closure at the end of the section. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rod Laver#RfC on article intro (Initiated 2455 days ago on 7 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Religion= restoration and guideline for usage (Initiated 2447 days ago on 15 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States#Presidential images (Initiated 2446 days ago on 16 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Experienced closer needed on difficult issues relating to BLP, DUE WEIGHT etc. in article about a recent event widely reported and discussed in American media. There is additional talk page discussion in several sections of Talk:Shooting of Stephon Clark. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, although I strongly suspect this is going to need a follow-up RfC to properly sort this. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2443 days ago on 19 March 2018) Per #1 of the instructions above: Could an admin or a very experienced editor consider the possibility of an early close? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Regretably, no.Check this thread.Best,~ Winged BladesGodric 08:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- MrX 🖋 18:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Circling back on this one since it will be eligible for closure within the next couple of days. It would be great if someone could step up in advance with an offer to close it, to short circuit concerns about when it will be closed (which have already started). The numbers are relatively lopsided, but there is a lot of discussion to read for a proper close. (I closed a related RfC several years ago, but am not eligible this time, having participated.) --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
- @RL0919: Think I'm suitably neutral on this - I'm happy to take a look once you think this is dead if you like (caveat - I have been involved with the NPP/AfC process, but returning from inactivity so I'm happy I'm suitably independent here). Mdann52 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} -- someone else beat you to it the moment the bot removed the RfC tag. --RL0919 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- @RL0919: Think I'm suitably neutral on this - I'm happy to take a look once you think this is dead if you like (caveat - I have been involved with the NPP/AfC process, but returning from inactivity so I'm happy I'm suitably independent here). Mdann52 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Circling back on this one since it will be eligible for closure within the next couple of days. It would be great if someone could step up in advance with an offer to close it, to short circuit concerns about when it will be closed (which have already started). The numbers are relatively lopsided, but there is a lot of discussion to read for a proper close. (I closed a related RfC several years ago, but am not eligible this time, having participated.) --RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
An uninvolved administrator is requested to perform a final close of the page-move request. After I closed it, a participant and supporter asked me on my talk page to reconsider my close. I reopened the RM just in case my close was indeed incorrect. Thank you in advance for your consideraton in this matter! Paine Ellsworth put'r there 10:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'd personally like to see the discussion relisted--most of the oppose comments were made early on, before any supporters had made much of an argument in favor of the move. Additionally, a lot of the oppose comments were made with little or no explanation of why they made that choice, while most of the support comments gave detailed arguments in favor of their choice. If you haven't already guessed, I'm a strong supporter of the move, which is why I feel it'd be inappropriate for me to relist the discussion, and thus would really like an admin to consider doing so instead. --IagoQnsi (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2441 days ago on 21 March 2018) Would someone please close this discussion. Although the !votes are very lopsided, there is a significant dispute regarding the interpretation of policy that needs uninvolved evaluation. ResultingConstant (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1#RfC on inclusion of Matt Lauer content (Initiated 2475 days ago on 15 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#RfC: Trump's reaction to Charlottesville (Initiated 2472 days ago on 18 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Black genocide#Request for comment: Conspiracy theory? (Initiated 2468 days ago on 22 February 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Lack of advocacy for black gun owners (Initiated 2454 days ago on 8 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Matthew Island and Hunter Island#RfC about the Federal Republic of Lostisland claim (Initiated 2454 days ago on 8 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Margot Robbie#RFC on infobox image (Initiated 2445 days ago on 17 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Westfield Garden State Plaza#RFC (Initiated 2452 days ago on 10 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mikhail Bulgakov#RfC about how best to describe Bulgakov's views on Ukraine (Initiated 2451 days ago on 11 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus, (Initiated 2506 days ago on 15 January 2018) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, you could have closed that one yourself. Fish+Karate 14:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2462 days ago on 28 February 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 10#Category:Descendants of John Ames (born 1647)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by User:BrownHairedGirl. Don't put a request for closure back here after it's been closed. Iffy★Chat -- 10:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I am asking if an uninvolved admin can close this topic. It is not the first time that the naming conventions at WP:NYCPT have been disputed by editors in the past that are non-contributors to the project. The argument has been brought up in the past that disambiguators for the station names that fall under the WP:NYCPT scope are long and unnecessary, but we have precedent as to why they are disambiguated the way they are. I do not want another argument to break out like it did a few years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/Archive 14#Edit threat:. Thanks in advance. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- To add on, there were two proposals in the past to move hundreds of articles to conform to WP:USSTATIONS's naming conventions, in here and here. Both were unsuccessful. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- Correction: I was not trying to enforce USSTATION with that requested move, I was trying to generically remove unneeded dabs (why is why I originally ommitted the word station). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- @LRG5784: There is no question here. What exactly are you looking for a closer to do? AIRcorn (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: As a fellow NYC Public Transport member, I think LRG5784 wants the thread to be closed. I'm assuming that this would be done using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, an action that would probably not need admin rights since this is not an RFC. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I know the process of how to close, I am just not sure how to close this one. I started reading the thread and as someone a long way from New York and with little interest in public transport it was tedious (no offense meant as it is obviously an interesting area to many). It is long, there are a lot of (often vague) references to past discussion, a few personality conflicts and no real questions that a closer could find consensus on. It is a typical convoluted Wikiproject discussion between contributors that are familiar with each other and have strong views on a very specific area within the topic. So I guess does it need closing? Is it worth an editors time to read that thread to try and figure out a consensus? Best I could do would be to close it and say start a RFC, which is the next step anyway for these type of discussions and doesn't need a close. AIRcorn (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: No offense taken, some people will really like trains and most people won't care that much. On further thought, I don't think this discussion needs closing, since it's not an RFC. I don't believe this needs a whole separate RFC either, since the discussion is about a United States railroad station guideline that already has agreement, except in Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. The guideline has it that U.S. railroad, subway, light rail, etc. stations should be named under the format "X station", but New York City has so many similarly-named subway stations that reaching a consensus on this particular matter is very hard.The discussion was basically about how best to move subway station pages to conform with the guideline, and whether NYC transport pages in general were so complicated that they should be exempted from that guideline for now. The discussion was deadlocked for a while, and some personal attacks were made in that discussion (mostly by the admins who supported the guideline and couldn't wait). That's when this request was made on WP:AN/RFC. Afterward, I proposed a new way to transition to the new guideline, and there was some agreement and disagreement to my suggestion.I suppose that based on the short context I just gave, a formal close isn't necessary. Just letting the discussion run its course is fine. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: I know the process of how to close, I am just not sure how to close this one. I started reading the thread and as someone a long way from New York and with little interest in public transport it was tedious (no offense meant as it is obviously an interesting area to many). It is long, there are a lot of (often vague) references to past discussion, a few personality conflicts and no real questions that a closer could find consensus on. It is a typical convoluted Wikiproject discussion between contributors that are familiar with each other and have strong views on a very specific area within the topic. So I guess does it need closing? Is it worth an editors time to read that thread to try and figure out a consensus? Best I could do would be to close it and say start a RFC, which is the next step anyway for these type of discussions and doesn't need a close. AIRcorn (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: As a fellow NYC Public Transport member, I think LRG5784 wants the thread to be closed. I'm assuming that this would be done using {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, an action that would probably not need admin rights since this is not an RFC. epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report (Initiated 2450 days ago on 12 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great#RfC about choice of top photo (Initiated 2450 days ago on 12 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Comedian#Comedienne (March 2018) (Initiated 2450 days ago on 12 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2444 days ago on 18 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland#RFC_one_whether_Polish_railway_personnel_should_be_listed_as_collaborators: Should the article mention Polish railway personnel as collaborators with the Nazi occupation authorities? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Stoney (album)#Proposed deletion of Stoney (album)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: {{not done}} I don't know why you've brought this here. The thread that you linked to is not a deletion discussion, it is the notification of a WP:PROD that was mistakenly put on the article's talk page (21 months ago) by Cotton2 (talk · contribs) in addition to the creator's talk page, as a direct follow-up to this PROD. Since it's a PROD, and somebody has objected, WP:DEPROD applies. No discussion is necessary: consensus is clearly to keep (per DEPROD rules), and certainly no formal closure is required. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jorge I. Domínguez#RFC on sexual harassment material in BLP (Initiated 2451 days ago on 11 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2443 days ago on 19 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) at 01:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2406 days ago on 25 April 2018) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nigeria/News (2nd nomination): Nominator has agreed to withdraw. — The Transhumanist 12:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @The Transhumanist: Where have they explicitly stated this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Their intent is very clear, but I have posted a reply to them asking for explicit clarification. I'll post a quote here if/when that is received. Thank you. I'll be in touch (hopefully). — The Transhumanist 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2444 days ago on 18 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 Formula One World Championship#Request for Comment on tyres? Thanks, Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_23#Years_and_decades_in_Italy_(1000-1859): Discussion stalled since 20 March. Consensus seems clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well I closed it, but we need a robotic editor to remove the cfd notice from hundreds of pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - for bot's benefit. Fish+Karate 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_28#Category:Steeplechase_horse_racing: closure over 40 days overdue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed yesterday by Fayenatic_london. Fish+Karate 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox Closure for info-box discussion
We have had a few comments at the talk page. I'd like for someone to take a look and close the discussion, thank you. VedantTalk 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: - there isn't really a conclusion to draw from that, there is no consensus; are you sure a closure is necessary? Fish+Karate 13:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Fish and karate. It's been inactive for a whirl now and I just did not want to close it myself. A couple of commentators said that they'd rather not have it, but none have revisited, neither has the editor with the objection. I was just wondering if we could bury it and not go back to not having an info box, the way the article was when it passed GA? Thanks for the repsonse. VedantTalk 14:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, and you were right not to close it yourself, that would have not been appropriate. Fish+Karate 15:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, Fish and karate. It's been inactive for a whirl now and I just did not want to close it myself. A couple of commentators said that they'd rather not have it, but none have revisited, neither has the editor with the objection. I was just wondering if we could bury it and not go back to not having an info box, the way the article was when it passed GA? Thanks for the repsonse. VedantTalk 14:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Christina Hoff Sommers#RfC about the Melanie Kirkpatrick quote (Initiated 2447 days ago on 15 March 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2621 days ago on 22 September 2017)
- There is also relevant commentary on the talk page. I can help with the procedural elements of the close once consensus is determined. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, forgot to tag. Fish+Karate 09:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2522 days ago on 30 December 2017)
- I am not sure that since given one respondent is an IP, whether there is a consensus. An uninvolved editor might be of use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}. IPs are human too. Fish+Karate 09:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2452 days ago on 10 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Current events/2018 March 6#Carl Benjamin news item? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a clear consensus to describe Carl Benjamin as an "Anti-feminist YouTuber". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2446 days ago on 16 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Evanescence#Officcial RfC on the band's genre? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for an infobox genre parameter. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball Bugs' comments at ANI (Initiated 2401 days ago on 30 April 2018)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2437 days ago on 25 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#RFC: Hashish dealing subsection and heading? Please consider the RfC close of Talk:Doug Ford Jr.#Request for comment: Globe and Mail investigative report in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} - the discussion archived without being closed. The filer of the RfC was banned for sockpuppetry, and everyone else moved on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2432 days ago on 30 March 2018) -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2449 days ago on 13 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Windows Server 2016#RfC Windows Server 2016 vs Windows Server, version 1709? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC) {{Done}} --llywrch (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2447 days ago on 15 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Great Courses#RfC -- Course categories and professor names? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed as no consensus on inclusion or deletion of courses and teachers. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2442 days ago on 20 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Snoop Dogg discography#Split? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for splitting. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2439 days ago on 23 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Washington#Request for comment on whether or not the painting known as "Washington Crossing the Delaware" should be included in this article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a clear consensus to retain the disputed image. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2413 days ago on 18 April 2018) See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_request, posting here in case it somehow gets some more eyes on this request. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by L235 Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2429 days ago on 2 April 2018)
- Uninvolved closer requested (per Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#After each future issue) - Evad37 [talk] 02:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{close}} closed. — xaosflux Talk 18:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Hmm, cluebot should've archived it by now based on the {{close}} but hasn't, let's try using {{done}}.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2443 days ago on 19 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC on the original author? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with consensus to oppose naming an "author" for this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2443 days ago on 19 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Buckingham Palace#RfC about infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2427 days ago on 4 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neo-Nazism#RfC: on the inclusion of "and implement" in the opening sentence of the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2425 days ago on 6 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kate Mara#Infobox image RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2441 days ago on 21 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Thiel#RFC - organization of article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2443 days ago on 19 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent#Biased and misleading title? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2434 days ago on 28 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#RfC about statement in the lead section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2544 days ago on 8 December 2017)
- I can help with the procedural elements of the close once consensus is determined. AIRcorn (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: @Bolter21: - I'm inclined to give this a couple of days more as per Bolter21's comment, would that be ok? Fish+Karate 13:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- A couple more days wouldn't hurt. AIRcorn (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}:Closed it myself. AIRcorn (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2434 days ago on 28 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Infobox RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}}-By others — FR+ 17:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2432 days ago on 30 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Family of Donald Trump#RfC: What should be included in the infobox?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}}-By others — FR+ 17:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2425 days ago on 6 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC about birther claim? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2425 days ago on 6 April 2018) Requesting that an uninvolved editor close the RfC as this is a contentious topic. I would ask that the closer review the threaded discussion regarding possible sourcing issues as well. –dlthewave ☎ 01:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2419 days ago on 12 April 2018) Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2397 days ago on 4 May 2018) Outcome here is very obvious. Currently 6 to 1 vote. I asked the one "keep" vote if we could proceed to consensus but the editor has not answered, while still working actively on other parts of the article.. Since that editor has restored this same content to the article multiple times, a formal closure by an uninvolved editor seems advisable, so the matter does not repeat itself again.BC1278 (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
- The question is whether the Nextdoor article should mention its founder's hit-and-run accident. Nirav Tolia, Nextdoor's founder and CEO, caused a freeway accident that severely injured a woman. Tolia (and his wife) fled the scene of the accident -- an oversight for which Tolia was sentenced to 30 days in county jail and a $239 fine. I argued that since Nextdoor is self-proclaimed "community building site" and Mr. Tolia's flight from the accident didn't demonstrate community spirit, mention of the accident should maybe be included. I've been outvoted 1 to 5.5 so far. My opponents' argument is that the accident would belong in an article about Tolia, but not an article about the company he founded and oversees. It definitely belongs in my article about Tolia. I'm still hoping more editors show up to weigh the matter.
- You may note that BC1278 has a COI here and is being paid by Nextdoor to re-write the article. I think it deserves more discussion, especially in light of the fact that BC1278 didn't mention his COI in his request for comments at at “Economy, Trade, and Companies” and ”Biographies”. Chisme (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2426 days ago on 5 April 2018) Could someone close this? Thanks Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}}-By others — FR+ 17:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2410 days ago on 21 April 2018) This is a topic that has gone trough three RfCs, two discussions, and one WP:30 in the last six months. It is not complex or particularly controversial, but the discussion tends to go on and on, but the arguments on each side don't appear to have changed (you can see this in the current thread). An official closure by an uninvolved user is probably necessary to ensure that it doesn't dragged on and on. Requesting a closure at the appropriate time. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2413 days ago on 18 April 2018)
- Can someone please close this as consensus is against merging and this is subject to a time-sensitive DYK nomination for this Saturday and the merge proposal is preventing it from progressing. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2445 days ago on 17 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy/Archive 1#RfC about Glenn Greenwald's criticism? Thanks, FallingGravity 16:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alliance for Securing Democracy/Archive 1#RfC about Glenn Greenwald's criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Fish+Karate 13:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2423 days ago on 8 April 2018)
- This is a huge discussion that impacts every corner of Wikipedia, as such it is going to possibly need multiple closers. I am placing this here as a way to find non involved editors that would be willing to take on the task. This is a new RfC yes, but there is a-lot here to process and digest in the discussion to come up with a conclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take this one on, with others if needed. Mdann52 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- And, I would be happy to join the bandwagon:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 16:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well thanks, while it isn't time to close yet it is good to know people are on board here to help out. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Mdann52 and Winged Blades of Godric:, and any other experienced RFC closers: Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals#How to close and advise (there) on how the closure will likely proceed (and a possible time table). This is one of the largest and most contentious RFCs ever (probably), so some care should be taken on the exact procedure that is followed. - dcljr (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- As I've commented within the RFC, I can't help with the close. In terms of the procedure, though, it's absolutely going to be #4, and I suggest putting a big bold note at the bottom and top of the RFC saying it will be closed on a particular date at least a week in the future, and that the closing summary will be provided within a further week, giving you the time to craft it. Fish+Karate 08:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- I want to echo too that other uninvolved experienced RFC closers are also welcome to join in if you guys need it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm game. Curious to see where it ends. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the 30-day mark of this RfC is rapidly approaching, so someone (e.g., the admin who's thinking of officially closing it?) needs to decide whether to extend it (as explained at WP:RFC#Ending RfCs, in the part about Legobot). I know anyone can extend an RfC, but I'd rather not do it myself. - dcljr (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- The RFC is long and dangly and needs surgical removal rather than extension. Closure is straightforward – nearly all recent !votes are oppose and most of the supports are of the form "Support but do not delete any relevant pages". There is no need to summarise the various opinions. Best simply to thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Please coordinate closure with Wikipedia:Consultation on the future of portals. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- This important discussion is a month old today, it's time for a verdict on if portals are to be gone or not. I also recommend archiving it as such a large debate could be a good precedent. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Mdann52, Winged Blades of Godric, and Primefac: those who expressed an interest in closing this; Kirbanzo what do you mean by "archiving it"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why you pinged us and not Kirbanzo, but we're working on a close. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Mostly just to ask if the closing is happening. Good to know Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure why you pinged us and not Kirbanzo, but we're working on a close. Primefac (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Mdann52, Winged Blades of Godric, and Primefac: those who expressed an interest in closing this; Kirbanzo what do you mean by "archiving it"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Working Primefac (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)- {{done}} Forgot to mark it. Primefac (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2422 days ago on 9 April 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Telephone numbering plan#Should articles about a specific United States area code be titled "United States area code "? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2434 days ago on 28 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Could an admin please close Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC, initiated 28 March? Doc James removed the videos in April, but there is a discussion at WT:MED about readding them, so a summary of community consensus on the RFC about these videos would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- There is a discussion about videos not yet a discussion about re adding them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, in terms of formally closing the RFC, but with a note that discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. Fish+Karate 13:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2432 days ago on 30 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Apache OpenOffice#"Moribund" status? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2431 days ago on 31 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Germanic peoples#modern germanic peoples? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2431 days ago on 31 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of most visited museums#Request for comment on list length? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2430 days ago on 31 March 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox (film)#RfC about the cast and plot? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2429 days ago on 2 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal#RFC: Removal of extraneous header? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2420 days ago on 11 April 2018) Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2389 days ago on 12 May 2018) Requesting administrative closure of Talk:Anatolia#RfC about map caption because another Rfc about essentially the same topic is still running in the long section immediately above that one (here). Mathglot (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} You don't need an admin to close an RfC early - just remove the
{{rfc}}template like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2423 days ago on 8 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Poland#Rfc about photo? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2423 days ago on 8 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CSA Steaua București (football)#RfC on this article's content? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2422 days ago on 9 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus for WP:NBOX, criterion #3 at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 163#Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#Annual Reviews on Boxing Notability especially in ways of Regional Titles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC on SNG criterion 3 change, and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Annual Reviews on Boxing Notability especially in ways of Regional Titles). RonSigPi (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
- @RonSigPi: There is nothing to close; the DRN thread that you have linked was closed more than three weeks before you posted here (to be precise, at 07:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC) by Robert McClenon), and it wasn't even an RfC either.
- Do you actually mean Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC on SNG criterion 3 change? This one was an RfC (start; end). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Essentially, yes. To give full background, an editor started a discussion on a sports specific page, but did not tell the sports project page. The proposal from that discussion had unanimous support from the project page. When that editor tried implementing the change, it was shot down because it was not mentioned on the general sports talk page. A discussion started there, but was less focused on the issue at hand and more on the overall purpose of the sports guidelines. When a test was requested and in my view passed, I made the change but the test requesting editor undid the change (another undo happened, but that was because they wanted more time to pass). I took it to dispute resolution and they asked for a RfC. I put that out, but not much else was said - I was not surprised, it had been discussed a lot, just in a lot of places. I worked my request the way I did because I didn't want to over explain and violate the request for a neutral statement. I tried to make it clear all the places this was discussed, but to me Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive 163#Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was the clearest to see the summary of the points raised. That is why I headed off with it, but I included the RfC in my links. Just trying to give all the information out there and not hide anything, which is why there are multiple links. I really don't know were else to go with this. This is a second venue after the dispute resolution asked me to do an RfC. I did that and now am asking for someone to make a decision. I would make a change, but I am probably too involved and I know my decision will be undone anyways. Basically, we have four editors all saying yes (all project members without any dissent from the project page) with one editor saying no until more proof (in my opinion, too high a requirement of proof and proof requirement not consistent with other guidelines) and one editor that I would not say has made a decision, but has stated there are some questions. So at worst this is 4-2 (yes: RonSigPi, Michig, Bennyaha, Okeeffemarc (voted yes, but asked for RfC, which was done); no: Djsasso; appear to lean no: Bagumba; unknown (but to me likely yes): Oknazevad (said only issue was that more time was needed, which was given)) with logic to me also favoring the change (previously less fighters were ranked due to less ranking bodies and boxing being a more popular sport). Everyone has had plenty of time to comment, I would just like a decision made. I included all the editors so they are aware of this going on, but again this has been discussed at length. Since the RfC was the last thing request, I went here. But the RfC was poorly responded to because there was already plenty of comments before it and I tried to make sure all were captured so a neutral party can make a decision. If this isn't the venue, then please tell me where to take this for someone to make a decision. Honestly, after almost two months I just want a neutral party to make a decision and explain why. RonSigPi (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: This appears to be convoluted to mask the lack of support at the RfC. I've added my opposition there.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah its pretty clear here that there is no consensus for the changes. 3 yes and 3 no. You can't assume Oknazevad isn't a no since he reverted you. Your time would be better spent doing the easy task that was set before you. Also if you would have taken the suggestion at dispute resolution and put the RfC on the affected page (where they are supposed to be) you also would have had better participation and likely an answer by now. Hiding it on the boxing page means edits to it don't ping the people who have the guideline watchlisted. -DJSasso (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have little opinion on they actual changes. (Maybe a little more permissive than I would have gone with; many of the boxers that would be under those changes would be covered by the GNG anyway.) I was just purely concerned with rushing through major changes to a widely used guideline with only two days of discussion on a totally separate talk page with no notification to the actual talk page of the guideline itself. There's WP:NOTBURO, and then there's just not holding sufficient discussion to actually determine consensus. oknazevad (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. The monkey-work issue. The author of the RFC, who is presumed to be an Old World primate (because they are not registered as a bot), was advised to move the RFC to a more visible location, and said that they were not a monkey. I closed the DRN thread because an RFC, even if it is not in the preferred location, takes precedence over DRN. I advised the author of the RFC to publicize it neutrally. Either they didn't publicize it much, or the publicity didn't help much. It isn't clear to me why moving an RFC is work for a monkey in senso strictu and beneath the dignity of an ape, but that isn't important. Also, the RFC was already published when the DRN thread was filed. An RFC takes precedence over DRN, and DRN isn't a vehicle for changing a guideline anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Honestly, I have little opinion on they actual changes. (Maybe a little more permissive than I would have gone with; many of the boxers that would be under those changes would be covered by the GNG anyway.) I was just purely concerned with rushing through major changes to a widely used guideline with only two days of discussion on a totally separate talk page with no notification to the actual talk page of the guideline itself. There's WP:NOTBURO, and then there's just not holding sufficient discussion to actually determine consensus. oknazevad (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} everything appears very convoluted, however overall there doesn't appear to be anything to close. The simple thing is, if a discussion on WT:NSPORT doesn't have too much participation, not much of a consensus etc, then make an RfC on WT:NSPORT, which should resolve it. A wikiproject talk page isn't an appropriate place to have a consensus to change a guideline; the only really appropriate places would be the talk page of the guideline and WP:VPP (or WP:VPR) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2421 days ago on 10 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Holocaust denial#Propose removing the section on "Notable Holocaust deniers"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2418 days ago on 13 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mark Weisbrot#Request for comment on works and publications? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2418 days ago on 13 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of English monarchs#Proposal to change reign dates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2417 days ago on 14 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sarah Paulson#Infobox image RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2415 days ago on 16 April 2018) Would an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Andrew Scheer#RfC about Removing edits by the IP and the sock puppets? Thanks. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} with only you and the other editor commenting, there isn't anything really to assess and close there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2405 days ago on 26 April 2018) Discussion has gone around in circles and everyone who is going to participate seems to have done so, aside from some suspicious IPs. --Calthinus (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2394 days ago on 7 May 2018) Requesting assistance to close the RFC. Several new editors who joined the discussion agree that using the word "black" to refer to Asians, Indians and Coloureds in South Africa would create tremendous amount of confusion to international readers especially considering how sensitive the topic is. It also changes the entire context in books and websites cited as references. The page has been subject to Disruptive Editing with the admins issuing several warnings to the individuals involved. Please go down to the bottom of the page to see the Survey results and please see the aggregate views (listed by the user Classical liberal za) of the editors who believe that the word should NOT be used to refer to Asians, Indians and Coloured. Thank you. Jansprat123 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by NeilN. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2395 days ago on 6 May 2018) Participant in discussion has requested close, as it appears to be in the wrong venue (should have been at NPOV NB) and discussion seems to have run it's course. I was not involved in the discussion. - theWOLFchild 18:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2400 days ago on 1 May 2018) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Forest High School (Florida)#Mention shooting? and the related chat at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 2#Forest High School shooting --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- The RFD was closed as delete. The content discussion is dead in the water and closure would be appreciated. John from Idegon (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2482 days ago on 8 February 2018) Can an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Controversial? Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2419 days ago on 12 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:CNN#RfC on Lede Revision Change? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2418 days ago on 13 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Sci-Hub#Website and IP in infobox for Sci-Hub? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2416 days ago on 15 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RFC On new article title? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2405 days ago on 26 April 2018) A discussion about the use of inline attribution instead of Wikipedia's voice with regard to a statement agreed by an earlier RfC. Batternut (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2421 days ago on 10 April 2018) Can an uninvolved editor assess the merge consensus at Talk:List of cryptids#Merge proposal with lists of legendary creatures. Even though it appears lopsided, since it's a somewhat touchy/controversial topic (or at least has been in the past) I thought it best for a formal close. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2420 days ago on 11 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bill Shorten#Request for comment on inclusion of rape allegation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2406 days ago on 25 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#"Support" section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Godric Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2393 days ago on 8 May 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May#Involuntary celibacy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2418 days ago on 13 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bitcoin Cash#Revised RfC on altname Bcash? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2413 days ago on 18 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Minarchism#Merge with Night-watchman state? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed yesterday by User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric. Fish+Karate 13:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2590 days ago on 23 October 2017) Seems as consensus has been achieved, though neutral closure would be appreciated.GreyShark (dibra) 10:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2379 days ago on 22 May 2018) Would someone close this? My nomination received no support, and was attracting unwanted negative attention from the article's creator among others, so I withdrew my nomination two days later, but that hasn't stopped the article's creator from slinging more mud at both me and one of his fellow "keep" !votes.[3][4] Could someone just close it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @Nyttend: Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2477 days ago on 13 February 2018) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2465 days ago on 25 February 2018) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to close this merge discussion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2394 days ago on 7 May 2018)
This has gone on for long enough, and has not attracted any attention in the last two days. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, could an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion? The consensus is fairly clear I think. Alex Shih (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Euryalus Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2404 days ago on 27 April 2018) Could someone check the consensus here? Talk:Dana Loesch/Archive 2#RfC: False statement about gun control town hall meeting? {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
{{Done}} Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2455 days ago on 7 March 2018)
- I can help with the procedural elements of the close once consensus is determined. AIRcorn (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Aircorn: - I see this as a close with the GA status being kept; the primary concerns (a lack of a criticism section; the lack of discussion of animal behaviour in favour of exclusively focusing on human behavioural genetics) have been addressed. If you can carry out all the procedural elements and tell me where to post that as the closing summary I'm happy to do that, or just link to this post. Fish+Karate 08:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2403 days ago on 28 April 2018) Though after a month the consensus appears to be clearly against a merge, and nobody has contested the notability of the sculpture, I would appreciate an uninvolved editor closing this discussion. Thanks! --Usernameunique (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2379 days ago on 22 May 2018) As of 29 May, this has run for one week, a period mentioned in wp:MERGE guidelines. I think it can be seen that a consensus emerged quickly. Because the issue was contentious (in disagreement over several years, happily not much reflected in this basically civil merger discussion), I would appreciate if an uninvolved editor could close the discussion. TIA! --Doncram (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2420 days ago on 11 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Specifying the code of football at first reference in team articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- This RFC is now archived at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_142#Specifying_the_code_of_football_at_first_reference_in_team_articles. Iffy★Chat -- 15:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, closed as no consensus. It is a pain when the bot archives RFCs when they are still open. Fish+Karate 13:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2414 days ago on 17 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Thiel#Peter Thiel philanthropy section? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2412 days ago on 19 April 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism#RfC: what views in 'Existentialism is a Humanism' did Sartre reject and where and when did he do so?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2374 days ago on 27 May 2018) Could an uninvolved editor please assess consensus at Talk:Nextdoor#Proposed_new_language_for_"Racial_profiling"_section? Is this ready for closure or does it need to go to mediation? - BC1278 (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278
- {{not done}} as superseded by RfC Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2403 days ago on 28 April 2018) Would someone assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#Should we mention the Forbes 400 tapes in the 'wealth' section of the article? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --Brustopher (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2507 days ago on 14 January 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Raw Power#RfC: Should the source of this review be credited in the ratings template as the newspaper/publication that published it or the catchall title of the music column in which it was featured?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2438 days ago on 24 March 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:John R. Bolton#Infobox RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2415 days ago on 16 April 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sean Hannity#Hannity's attacks on the Mueller investigation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2400 days ago on 1 May 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox 2? Please consider the earlier closed RfC Talk:Nicholas Hoult#Infobox in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Doing... ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Godric Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2373 days ago on 28 May 2018)
Page should be speedy-deleted as unambiguous copyright violation, now confirmed by the article creator. If someone wants to tell Dream Focus off for (unwittingly) copying copyvio content onto Wikia with the explicit intent of undermining our deletion policy,[5] engaging in IDHT denialism after it was demonstrated that the content in question was copyvio,[6][7][8] implying that it is other users' responsibility to clean up his mess just because he attributed the mess to them,[9][10] and carelessly writing in a manner that will make new editors think it is okay to copy-paste text as long as it is "fair use",[11] that would be nice too, but honestly I'm increasingly convinced he's never going to change at this point, and no one seems to be willing to do anything about it, so I'd settle for the AFD being closed so everyone can move on with their lives. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Anthony.Age-old problems with DF and ARS..... ~ Winged BladesGodric 06:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2660 days ago on 14 August 2017) Could someone assess consensus at Talk:British Sri Lankans#Proposed merge with British Sri Lankan Tamil? This concerns merging an article created by a now-blocked editor, but it has been hard to attract comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, given half the contributors to that RFC have been indeffed for various unrelated shenanigans I recommend you may just want to get on with a merge. Fish+Karate 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2409 days ago on 22 April 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sean Hannity#RfC re: Article tone and WP:POV? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 0 days' time on 25 November 2024)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Judicial Watch#RfC: Is Judicial Watch a "self-styled" watchdog group?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2405 days ago on 26 April 2018) -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2374 days ago on 27 May 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 May#Meghan, Duchess of Sussex? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by User:Cuchullain. Iffy★Chat -- 13:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2408 days ago on 23 April 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Invasion of Privacy (album)#Drip RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2406 days ago on 25 April 2018) I was wondering if someone could look over this old Cfd, especially the last paragraph I wrote, and close it. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed by User:Fayenatic london. Fish+Karate 13:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2403 days ago on 28 April 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier#RFC on stating no public evidence of collusion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} I'm thinking a case related to this matter may be brought before the ArbCom soon. -- llywrch (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2407 days ago on 24 April 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#"including holding a cryptocurrency"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2400 days ago on 1 May 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anatolia#RfC about infobox map? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Could an administrator please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#April_2018_United_Kingdom_heat_wave? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2404 days ago on 27 April 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#RfC: Descriptive phrases and song titles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2399 days ago on 2 May 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:President's Call to Service Award#RfC on including the list of recipients? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus here or relist? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Randykitty (talk · contribs). @Jax 0677: Most of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 June 5 should be processed today, if it wasn't done yesterday (5 June + 7 days is 12 June). Unless a FfD has been left open a lot longer than the others on the same daily page, raising a request here can cause duplicate work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2425 days ago on 6 April 2018) This one's quite complex (sorry!) and controversial, so probably needs multiple admins to close. I've been keeping track of the raw numbers for the !votes at [12] (which could do with double-checking), but obviously the numbers only tell a part of the story here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since the closure has a potential to be contested, three admins would definitely be a preference.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- could we please move this RFC up in the queue ... there are several other potential RFC’s regarding the use of Wikidata that are dependent on how this one is closed for their wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Blueboar maybe post on WP:AN then? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- could we please move this RFC up in the queue ... there are several other potential RFC’s regarding the use of Wikidata that are dependent on how this one is closed for their wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Working. Note: Polling is closed to enable a consensus to be determined. -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
- While I have written up a draft closing decision, there are only two of us working on this at the moment -- yours truly & Swarm. I'm making another plea for a third volunteer to help with this. (The original request for a third Admin was in the section moved to archive #299.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: - I can help but I'm not around much at weekends. Fish+Karate 13:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, Fish and Karate, neither am I. For some reason my family demands my attention those days. I'll shoot you an email. -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: - I can help but I'm not around much at weekends. Fish+Karate 13:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- While I have written up a draft closing decision, there are only two of us working on this at the moment -- yours truly & Swarm. I'm making another plea for a third volunteer to help with this. (The original request for a third Admin was in the section moved to archive #299.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
On hold Fish+Karate has helpfully reviewed my draft, so at the moment I'm waiting on @Swarm: to provide input. Once I have that, I'll revise what I've written, send a copy to my fellows to approve, then close the discussion. (In other words, I haven't forgotten my pledge to handle this matter. Honest.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)- {{Done}} I've received all the feedback, merged, asked for further input, & now closed the RfC. I apologize for the lengthy delay, but because this is an important issue to so many people -- clearly more than who participated in the discussion -- I wanted to take care in getting this right. And any mistakes in this closing are mine alone, not of my fellow closers whom I thank for their time. -- llywrch (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks the closers for the good work. This was almost a suicidal task to accomplish, and though I am sure some users would disagree I think this is the best possible closure given the circumstances.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
_seated.jpg){kind=link}
_seated.jpg){kind=link}
(Initiated 2397 days ago on 4 May 2018)? Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kingdom Come: Deliverance#Request for comment on Kotaku opinion piece? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2384 days ago on 17 May 2018) Could someone check the consensus here and close? Please see also the talk history and the RfC just below. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2381 days ago on 20 May 2018) Could someone check the consensus here? Talk:Theosophy (Blavatskian)#RfC about the description of Theosophy as a religion in the lede Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2363 days ago on 7 June 2018) Normally I'd expect an RFC to run for longer than a week, but all parties seem to have made their salient points and the discussion is now starting to degenerate into backbiting and personal attacks. It's now generating more heat than light, and could use closure (ideally by an admin, since the close will almost certainly be immediately contested by whichever side of the debate feels they have "lost"). Yunshui 雲水 08:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}, agreed that the useful discussion had drawn to a close. Fish+Karate 10:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2559 days ago on 23 November 2017) Could someone check the consensus here and close? The Banner talk 15:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just as a point of interest (because it took me the better part of a good long while to find it) the text in question was changed three days after the RFC opened. Depending on how the discussion is closed (I'm only about halfway through parsing everything) that might need to be reversed. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Before or after closing? The Banner talk 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if the consensus is to keep the "British Isles" bit, it would need to be reversed. Obviously if the consensus is to remove it, the there's nothing to do. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. That will be no problem. I think everybody stayed away to prevent edit wars, expecting the RFC to end quickly. The Banner talk 17:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if the consensus is to keep the "British Isles" bit, it would need to be reversed. Obviously if the consensus is to remove it, the there's nothing to do. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Before or after closing? The Banner talk 12:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 02:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)