Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 27
 | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
(Initiated 2247 days ago on 2 November 2018) discussion has long-since concluded and consensus is clear, but due to the nature of the discussion (a change to speedy deletion criteria) it needs formal closure and actioning by an uninvolved administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2262 days ago on 18 October 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October#World Heritage site? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously, this MR is discussed-out and then some, turning in on itself in rehash of rehash about rehash. It's rather aberrant for an MR to remain open this long. MR's purpose is to determine whether someone made a bad close, not to determine a new community consensus about content matter. That is, the longer this goes on, the longer there's an open accusation against an editor and their judgement. The actual matter is quite simple (was there or was there not a clear consensus in the RM closed as no consensus) despite all the verbiage in this MR (including the inappropriate attempts to turn an RM in favor of name A then an RM that did not conclude to revert to name B into a request to go to name B anyway as if the second RM had overturned the first, the opposite of what actually happened – it's a total re-litigation farm). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2229 days ago on 20 November 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 20? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since only administrators can undelete pages, I've moved this request to the "Administrative discussions" section. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2287 days ago on 22 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alan Walker discography#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2533 days ago on 19 January 2018) – Yeah, it really has been that long, but not because of any disagreement on consensus; the consensus being that Perihelion and aphelion covers the same exact ground as Apsis, as "perihelion" and "aphelion" are apsides of the Sun. Two are in opposition; one that clearly seems to not understand what redirects are, and another who is trying to argue that the Sun's apsides are more important that any other objects' apsides because "Its the sun"... Not exactly the best argument, is it? Would a kind editor please close this prolonged discussion with some hefty authority? It'd be much appreciated! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- As this discussion was not a request for comment, I've moved this request to the "other" section. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Newslinger talk 06:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2261 days ago on 19 October 2018) Could an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus in this discussion of a proposed merge? Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2315 days ago on 26 August 2018) Hello, folks! There's been a merge proposal open here since August. As I'm sure this is pretty unique, I'm not entirely sure where to post this, so I figured I might as well put this here. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Bloodofox this is the correct section for non-RfC discussions needing closing, so I've moved it here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- And another month goes by, can we close this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2251 days ago on 29 October 2018) has not received any new comments in about three weeks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Lourdes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2237 days ago on 11 November 2018) Has been open for 20 days. Was WP:NAC'd, then that close backed out when objected to. Needs reclosing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Joe Roe. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I strongly feel that a formal closure is needed here by an uninvolved editor. Please help. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to put a nice link like other topics here are having. Can someone assist with the formatting as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilseric (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- I must say that I have expected that you would at least read the discussion, and evaluate the arguments. RfC is not a vote count. I seriously doubt you could have done that in this amount of time. Bilseric (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Believe me, I did. Literally no one other than you agreed with your proposal, and strong policy-based arguments were made. That's a consensus right there, no vote-counting necessary. The one objection that could be made is that the discussion was closed too early and that more editors should have been given the opportunity to weigh in. However, having read the conversation, I sincerely doubt that the consensus would have changed, and at any rate you were the person who requested the discussion be closed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is it possible to reopen this and have 3-4 previously uninvolved editors share their opinion before formally closing. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask considering the situation. I really see no reason to rush the closure, although I have requested the formal closure. I just didn't expect it will be done so fast. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but to leave others share theirs, because I feel that the editors who were previously engaged have a predetermined opinion. I wanted to be objective so I asked them to come, but I unintentionally made a case of canvassing here. I'm sure that you would agree it would have been unfair if I had canvassed 3-4 editors to agree with me. This shouldn't be any different. Bilseric (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bilseric, there is no way that your proposal will get consensus because it based on WP:SYNTHESIS - please read that policy I've linked - since the sources don't mention Tesla. Proposals that fundamentally violate policy simply cannot get consensus and so there is no point in reopening and getting more editors to discuss it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Is it possible to reopen this and have 3-4 previously uninvolved editors share their opinion before formally closing. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to ask considering the situation. I really see no reason to rush the closure, although I have requested the formal closure. I just didn't expect it will be done so fast. I'm not asking you to change your opinion, but to leave others share theirs, because I feel that the editors who were previously engaged have a predetermined opinion. I wanted to be objective so I asked them to come, but I unintentionally made a case of canvassing here. I'm sure that you would agree it would have been unfair if I had canvassed 3-4 editors to agree with me. This shouldn't be any different. Bilseric (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Believe me, I did. Literally no one other than you agreed with your proposal, and strong policy-based arguments were made. That's a consensus right there, no vote-counting necessary. The one objection that could be made is that the discussion was closed too early and that more editors should have been given the opportunity to weigh in. However, having read the conversation, I sincerely doubt that the consensus would have changed, and at any rate you were the person who requested the discussion be closed. signed, Rosguill talk 01:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)01:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I must say that I have expected that you would at least read the discussion, and evaluate the arguments. RfC is not a vote count. I seriously doubt you could have done that in this amount of time. Bilseric (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- But I indeed have posted a source that mentions Tesla and is not SYNTH. It's listed as the 3rd point of RfC, however the closing didn't address that point. Did you read my last post in the discussion? I have accepted the SYNTH objection , that's why I posted the source other editors have requested. I just feel that we should allow a little more time for other editors to join in. There is really no need to rush. If other, previously uninvolved editors join and agree, I will accept the consensus. I just feel uncomfortable that the consensus is done solely by canvassed editors. Bilseric (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- You two can even share this opinions that you wrote here in the discussion. Then at least there will be 2 opinions from non involved editors. A few more and we will have the equal number of previously involved and new editors, then no one should feel that the consensus was rushed or pushed by canvassed editors. I feel that the closure done in this matter won't resolve anything and that the same discussion will be again opened in the future by someone else. Bilseric (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I just requested the closure because I felt that snow closure shouldn't be done solely by canvassed editors. I recognize my mistake when pinging other editors. I should have just opened the RfC without pinging, I will be more careful in the future.Rosguill said that the only objection that can be made is that it was closed to early, but I didn't expect it will be done so promptly. This is really my mistake since I'm not that experienced. If you read the discussion you will see that I was against rushing the closure, but I was afraid that they will snow close it, so I opened this request expecting ot will last for some time. I really have done everything to get more editors and correct this canvassing mistake that I did. I didn't want to ping more users because it would just worsen the situation. I don't see what more could I now possibly do to correct this canvassing. I apologize for making it happen. It was unintentionall. I feel the only to correct it is to plea you to leave the discussion opened for a little more time. Bilseric (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- You asked for input from additional editors. Sorry, but if reopened, I would !vote oppose. This is SYNTH and a particularly tenuous example of SYNTH as the source is so old. I suggest you move on. That’s all I have to say here as I don’t wish to clutter this page. O3000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok , you can do it, at least there will be one vote from uninvolved editor. But please, could you also comment on the second source that I have posted. I agree the 1st one is SYNTH. Bilseric (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- You asked for input from additional editors. Sorry, but if reopened, I would !vote oppose. This is SYNTH and a particularly tenuous example of SYNTH as the source is so old. I suggest you move on. That’s all I have to say here as I don’t wish to clutter this page. O3000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2265 days ago on 15 October 2018) Seems an open-and-shut case to me, no need to lengthen the discussion. Another editor, perfectly reasonably in my opinion, tried to remove the proposal as ridiculous but the proposer is having none of it. Clearly we need to follow the process here. Please can someone close this out as my contribution discounts me as "uninvolved". This is suitable for non-admin closure. Thank you MegaSloth (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2561 days ago on 23 December 2017)
Could an uninvolved Admin assess and close this discussion regarding how awards are dealt with in articles. A summary of the issues is provided at Talk:Natalya Meklin#Resolving?.
The issues have been extensively discussed by two opposing protagonists with comments by other experienced editors (of which I am one). The issue has developed to the status of a dispute between the two protagonists and the article page has been protected. I have specifically requested an Admin close to allow for removal of the page protection.
A close would very likely resolve the dispute and allow a return to normal editing. Alternatively, if no consensus can be identified, a close indicating a further course to resolve the matter would be appropriate.
I believe the two protagonists to be genuine good-faith editors who are simply unable to reconcile their differences without third-party intervention. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} I made an attempt to get the two participants to summarize their positions so I could close this. Neither one did. So, I've closed this as stale. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2260 days ago on 20 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Neo-medievalism#RfC Split or Keep?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} CarelessWombatLet's Talk! 20:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Restored from archive. CarelessWombat undid their closure per a request from GreenC. — Newslinger talk 00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2237 days ago on 12 November 2018) Hasn't been any new input in quite a while. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would have NAC'd this, but consensus is obvious, so per WP:RFCCLOSE a formal close is "not necessary or advisable". Geogene (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2213 days ago on 5 December 2018) I closed this. It was challenged and taken to AN: [1] Swarm affirmed that the close was correct. It was reopened anyhow. The only additions make it yet more clear that the close was correct. I think this is a waste of editor time and would like to see focus changed to concentration on content. That is, I think reverting the reopen would be best as the open RfC is now a distraction. O3000 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2243 days ago on 6 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antifa (United States)#RFC Political Violence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox organization#RfC on the removal of "motto" parameter from infobox organization
(Initiated 2243 days ago on 6 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox organization#RfC on the removal of "motto" parameter from infobox organization? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2216 days ago on 3 December 2018) Would appreciate an experienced editor taking a look at the Proposed Move at Talk:BFR_(rocket)#Requested_move_3_December_2018. Thank you. N2e (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- This WP:RM is still open. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Steel1943 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2264 days ago on 16 October 2018) Would an uninvolved admin or other experienced editor please close this multi-question RfC when the time is up? The issue is whether to introduce a new way of approaching source reviewing at FAC. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- This does not need to be closed at 30 days (some late feedback has occurred due to some notification spamming) and WBOG has already volunteered, for anyone reviewing. So, I object to "close this RFC when the time is up?". --Izno (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Izno and Mike Christie, we need someone entirely uninvolved to close this. WBOG was suggested by one of the supporters, and I have reservations for other reasons too. I posted here asking for someone uninvolved. Whoever decides to close can decide when it should be done. SarahSV (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Izno, I've just seen your edit summary "that's really obnoxious". [2] Does that refer to my request here? If yes, what's obnoxious about it? SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's obnoxious when we're having a conversation elsewhere for you to stop discussing and do the objectionable thing we were discussing. --Izno (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have moved the close request from the "RfCs" section to the "Administrative discussions" section. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} already marked as failed proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2254 days ago on 26 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC: Amendment for BIO to address systemic bias in the base of sources? Thanks. feminist (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} This was closed awhile ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2232 days ago on 17 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Citation styles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2235 days ago on 14 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Should BAG members have an activity requirement?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Primefac. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2232 days ago on 17 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: VDARE? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2214 days ago on 4 December 2018) Open more than two weeks, and all productive discussion here has ceased. It was reposted earlier this week, but that was unnecessary. Calidum 16:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
As a non-admin closure... --DannyS712 (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)- {{Done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2214 days ago on 4 December 2018) Could an experienced editor relist this or assess the consensus? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} on 22 December 2018 due to lack of consensus and to ongoing discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2237 days ago on 12 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposal/RfC - Extend WP:U5 to the draftspace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2224 days ago on 25 November 2018) This will soon finish. Want to make sure it has a proper closure before making the necessary changes. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- RGloucester, speaking as someone who hates process for the sake of process, what's the need of any closure? Be bold and just invest the changes:-) ∯WBGconverse 10:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you hate process for the sake of process, but I find it important that changes to Wikipedia processes be adequately processed, so as to ensure they actually represent the procedural consensus of the community. In my time, I've seen too many covert changes to such processes, along with the procedural chaos such changes beget... RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- RGloucester, to quote from WP:RFCEND:--
If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.
∯WBGconverse 17:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)- In my opinion, it is contentious (see WP:CONLIMITED). Please spare me this tirade. I simply came to request a closure, which isn't too much to ask. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- I apologise, if this came off as a tirade:( I hope that you have well-advertised the discussion (as ought be) and in that case, I've a hard time seeing this as any contentious. We agree to disagree:-) ∯WBGconverse 04:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it is contentious (see WP:CONLIMITED). Please spare me this tirade. I simply came to request a closure, which isn't too much to ask. RGloucester — ☎ 19:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- RGloucester, to quote from WP:RFCEND:--
- Perhaps you hate process for the sake of process, but I find it important that changes to Wikipedia processes be adequately processed, so as to ensure they actually represent the procedural consensus of the community. In my time, I've seen too many covert changes to such processes, along with the procedural chaos such changes beget... RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Winged Blades of Godric — Newslinger talk 10:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2242 days ago on 7 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 Wentworth by-election#RfC about numbers in the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2208 days ago on 10 December 2018). Discussion seems to be at a standstill. Calidum 13:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2208 days ago on 10 December 2018) Requesting that an uninvolved editor determine a consensus for a possible change of primary topic from George S. Patton to something else. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2813 days ago on 14 April 2017) Requesting that an administrator (or very experienced editor) look to close a merge proposal between List of Christian denominations and List of Christian denominations by number of members. Klbrain (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} (non-admin closure) as no consensus for merge by --John Cline (talk) 06:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2202 days ago on 17 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 17#Pakistan administered Kashmir? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by @Joe Roe: at 00:45, 30 December 2018. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2236 days ago on 13 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mohammad bin Salman#RfC on top subsection in Controversies? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2229 days ago on 20 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jackie Walker (activist)#Request for comment can we say Jackie Walker is Jewish? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2229 days ago on 20 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#RfC about the ideology in the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2220 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Don't stuff beans up your nose#RfC about when to talk about stuffing beans up your nose? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2419 days ago on 14 May 2018)
I opened this reassessment so would like someone else to close it. I can do all the technical stuff. Thanks in advance. AIRcorn (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Doing...∯WBGconverse 10:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} today by User:Winged Blades of Godric. Abequinn14 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2224 days ago on 25 November 2018) We need this 1-month old Rfc closed with a decision :) GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- GoodDay, decision?
There's a strong consensus that nothing needs to be settled and the concerned-guidelines are already perfect. Exceptions may be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
- That's the only two lines, I'm going to write in my closure-statement if I (at all) choose to ignore the need of writing closure-statements, where the consensus is reasonably clear. Do you expect any different outcome?
- There appears to be sentiment that in light of the abundance of spam-editing, we ought to remove our prohibitions against spamming and instead codify such behavior as appropriate but I don't understand the motivations.
- If you are seeking for
enforcement of policy-based-consistency
, a pointer to the guideline at the t/p(s) of the defaulting editors ought to usually suffice. And, any dispute ought be easily resolved with the usual t/p discussion (after all, MOS is a guideline; not a policy) with the involved editors. Pending that, an RFC may be launched (if he/they really feels that his reasoning is strong enough, to deviate from MOS and you disagree). On the other hand, if it's plain IDHT behaviour, ANI is handy-enough. Appropriately advertising the dispute at the MOS t/p(s) and other centralized pages (If it's about Narendra Modi, inform WT:INB and the like......) also helps a lot. - There also appears to exist a clique of editors who tag-team and remain steadfast-opposed to these established-guidelines, thus affecting local consensus. But, that's one of the much-broader problems of Wikipedia (hardly unique to MOS) and a month-long discussion won't give you any satisfying answer. ∯WBGconverse 13:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would you transfer your decision, over to the closed Rfc-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Will do. ∯WBGconverse 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric:, when? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} and the ping failed to reach me.∯WBGconverse 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric: It failed because GoodDay did it in two edits, not one - signature in the first, link to you in the second. That always breaks the notification. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} and the ping failed to reach me.∯WBGconverse 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric:, when? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Will do. ∯WBGconverse 15:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would you transfer your decision, over to the closed Rfc-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2273 days ago on 6 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Centralized discussion on the notability of political candidates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2264 days ago on 16 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Official websites that violate copyright? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2243 days ago on 6 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6#RfC on inclusion of police investigation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 6232 days ago on 5 December 2007) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2227 days ago on 22 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Wolfe (raw food advocate)#RfC - David Wolfe Facebook deletions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2196 days ago on 22 December 2018) Can an admin or an experienced user assess the consensus in this discussion please? --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, {{not done}}; discussions are not always meant to be closed.∯WBGconverse 09:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric: Hey, this is not a general discussion. Anyway, what's the outcome of this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, there was no particular question other than a garden-variety poser about the reliability and usability of Think-Tank pieces.
- Whilst there's a rough consensus that they ought be always attributed to (for statements derived from them), there's not much of any agreement about the exact cases, where they can be used and about how to use them, without violating DUE. Basically, as things stand, there exists a reasonable scope to exercise nuance and editorial discretion on a case-by-case basis.
- If you are looking for a closure/bright-line outcome; please create a new discussion with highly-specific queries.
- IMO, any future editor will be far more benefited by reading the entirety of the discussion and I have objections to closing a sparsely-attended (and non-advertised) discussion about a generic-poser; that covers a vast array of sources. FWIW, neither do I see any immediate reasons to stifle a free-flowing discussion; even before the elapse of a fortnight.
- Regards, ∯WBGconverse 13:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric: Hey, this is not a general discussion. Anyway, what's the outcome of this discussion? --Mhhossein talk 13:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- (Initiated 2184 days ago on 3 January 2019)
Can an admin (expect GiantSnowman) close this discussion as GiantSnowman requested in WT:FOOTY? Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} about four months ago. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2243 days ago on 6 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:YouTube#RfC: Conspiracy theories and fringe discourse? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2236 days ago on 13 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 6#Holocaust/Genocide Memorial Day? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2220 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Paul Ryan#RfC: Paul Ryan and the Congressional Leadership Fund? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 28 November 2018) This RfC appears to have run its course. Could someone uninvolved please come along, outline what the consensus is, and enact it? I'd do it myself (and indeed tried) but given the controversial nature of the article's contents and the polarisation of editors there it looks like we will need some uninvolved. Thanks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alt-right#RfC regarding use of primary sources? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2692 days ago on 14 August 2017) Requesting that an uninvolved editor look to close a merge proposal between Omonoia Square and Omonoia, Athens. Klbrain (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed no consensus. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2215 days ago on 4 December 2018) Requesting that an uninvolved editor look to close a merge proposal between Kach and Kahane Chai and Sicarii (1989).Emass100 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2220 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Style guide#RFC: Disambiguating courthouses and other buildings unique within a state? There is a clear consensus for the proposal. Some editors want to limit the RfC to courthouses, which makes how this RfC should be closed less clear so I am not closing the RfC. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2220 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
{{done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2189 days ago on 29 December 2018) Could an editor decide what the consensus on this discussion relating to the name parameter on the infobox of Los Angeles as it has gone quiet. The debate is whether it should be "Los Angeles, California" or just "Los Angeles". IWI (chat) 23:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... as a (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done. Oppose. Sorry, but no.
- There is no clear consensus, even - any consensus. Discussion and arguments are balanced. PS. agreement by user:Trovatore is not consensus, this is one user, please wait for the statements of other users.
- User:ImprovedWikiImprovment ("IWI") is the main opponent for one option, the user who applying (reporting) above, this user is completely biased (not objective). Just read the discussion to see that this user is too much involved to push his version.
- week is too short time for discussion with other users, not everyone has time to actively edit at the turn of the year 2018/2019. Post by Trovatore (3 January 2019), post by IWI (5 January 2019) and this day user:DannyS712 blocked discuss? Nonsense. If nobody would edit the discussion for a week - ok, but the discussion is still active.
- @DannyS712:, please restore discussion [3]. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man:
Reopened You're right. I jumped the gun on this, and have reopened the discussion. Sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Subtropical-man:
(Initiated 2235 days ago on 14 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Baraboo High School#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as option 4. - MrX 🖋 20:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2223 days ago on 26 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stéphane Grappelli#RFC: Gay? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 27 November 2018) It's been a month and this merge discussion could use an official close from an unaffiliated editor. czar 20:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2184 days ago on 3 January 2019) It would be great if an uninvolved and experienced editor could assess the consensus. Thanks. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mikrobølgeovn: After less than five days? I don't think so, RfCs normally run for thirty days, unless it is clear that everybody agrees. Here, they don't - so, {{not done}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: There is a clear consensus, but a single user is using the "ongoing discussion" as a justification to filibuster the implementation of the change. It should be closed, or at the very least the change should be implemented in the meantime. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2209 days ago on 9 December 2018) The editor who described stackoverflow.com as peer-reviewed and used it as a source recently also used it in the same article in 2012, so a formal close is requested to try to make sure the result of the RfC sticks. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jc3s5h: Please fix the link, it goes to an external site which is nothing to do with Wikipedia. If we have been holding Wikipedia RfCs off-wiki, then I call "foul" on this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Redrose64 and Jc3s5h: The error was based on the unescaped ":" in the section name. I fixed it. See Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters for more information. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: No, the error was the lack of a page name, and Jc3s5h (talk · contribs) fixed it. There is no need to escape a colon when it occurs in the fragment, see RFC 3986 Appendix A, specifically the entries for
fragmentandpchar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: No, the error was the lack of a page name, and Jc3s5h (talk · contribs) fixed it. There is no need to escape a colon when it occurs in the fragment, see RFC 3986 Appendix A, specifically the entries for
- @Redrose64 and Jc3s5h: The error was based on the unescaped ":" in the section name. I fixed it. See Help:URL#Fixing links with unsupported characters for more information. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2226 days ago on 23 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Request for comment: Should the Infobox photo caption identify a place or event if the information is tangential?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 23:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2220 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#RFC: Does this guideline cover plays and other literary works?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by User:Cinderella157 signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2227 days ago on 22 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to tighten administrator inactivity procedure? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2239 days ago on 10 November 2018) Hasn't been any new input in quite a while. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2219 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an uninvolved editor who is experienced with categories and lists please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories, regarding the idea of allowing redirects of the type List of X→Category:X? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2216 days ago on 3 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Elizabeth Warren#RfC about including Trump's promise to donate $1m to charity? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2248 days ago on 1 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Earth#Lead image caption? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2218 days ago on 1 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bekir Fikri#RfC about the ethnic origin of Bekir Fikri? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2243 days ago on 6 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2.0 (film)#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Archived to Talk:2.0_(film)/Archive_2#RfC. --TheSandDoctor Talk 10:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Newslinger talk 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2214 days ago on 5 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Origin of the Romanians#RfC about restructuring the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2210 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 2)#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2213 days ago on 6 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Equaliser (mathematics)#RfC: Harmonize spelling with the Coequalizer article?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2206 days ago on 12 December 2018) Could someone officially close this RfC regarding the reliability of sciencebasedmedicine.org? It's clearly run its course. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Calton:-The weighed-consensus looks extremely clear but I would prefer another week.∯WBGconverse 12:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Note: The page was archived before the RfC was closed. Don't know how this changes things, but the archive is available at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 253#RfC on sciencebasedmedicine.org. (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. An additional week has elapsed. — Newslinger talk 13:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Undone (Special:Diff/876790640). The discussion was restored (Special:Diff/876670423) to WP:RSN, but wasn't removed from the archive. — Newslinger talk 13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Tornado chaser: Please remember to delete discussions from the archive when restoring them to the noticeboard or talk page. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 13:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Newslinger talk 11:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2181 days ago on 7 January 2019) It’s been more than 7 days and the discussion has gone quiet, but consensus isn’t clear. IWI (chat) 14:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @ImprovedWikiImprovment:, this was relisted on January 14, and can be relisted once again on January 21. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: That's embarrassing; I didn’t see that lol. IWI (chat) 15:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2217 days ago on 2 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Road Warrior Hawk#RfC: Cause of death? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2197 days ago on 21 December 2018) A difficult close, because any decision will result in the move of a number of pages--either to bring the titles involved in the request in line with other related titles, or to revert a number of other moves that were not included in the request. Another factor is an earlier round of undiscussed renaming that moved many of these articles away from the titles under which they were created. The discussion has been relisted twice but no new comments have been added since January 1. Any help is appreciated, even if it is to assist in identifying the full range of page titles that will be affected by the close. Dekimasuよ! 01:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by another editor. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 23:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2188 days ago on 31 December 2018) Could an experienced editor relist or assess the consensus at Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)#Requested move 31 December 2018? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2212 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stav Shaffir#RFC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Sun? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
{{done}}by Winged Blades of Godric. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)- TheSandDoctor, Doing... . ∯WBGconverse 00:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- TheSandDoctor,
- The discussion is now archived at Archive 254. — Newslinger talk 04:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Winged Blades of Godric — Newslinger talk 22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2205 days ago on 13 December 2018), it's been over a week since the last post. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2176 days ago on 12 January 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Government shutdowns in the United States#Requested move 12 January 2019? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
{{Close}} Done, I closed the discussion in favor of the consensus to leave the name as is. The redirect page Government shutdown was changed to a disambiguation page, containing the US shutdown page, but leads readers to either the loss of supply or budget crisis articles.
∻ℳcCunicanℴ 10:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
{{reopened}}– Sorry, incorrect, please see your talk page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 11:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)- {{done}} by another editor. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 04:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2185 days ago on 3 January 2019) A user with experience at requested moves is needed to close this fairly long discussion. Calidum 20:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2228 days ago on 21 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fundinguniverse.com? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 28 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed amendment to WP:LISTPEOPLE regarding the inclusion of lists of non-notable victims in articles about tragic events? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @DeltaQuad at 21:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC). (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2216 days ago on 3 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michael Fassbender#RfC about allegations of physical abuse? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, although I disagree with the conclusion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2173 days ago on 15 January 2019) Could an experienced editor relist this or assess the consensus? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} No consensus. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2171 days ago on 17 January 2019) Could an experienced editor relist this or assess the consensus? There seems to be significant debate as to whether or not to keep or merge the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} yesterday by a different user. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2210 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Close}} --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2191 days ago on 28 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:The Washington Times#RfC about Lede sentence on columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... as a (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2219 days ago on 30 November 2018) The conversation here has not progressed much in over a month. Involved parties seem split equally in favor of merging and not merging. I am requesting for a user who is not involved to close the merge discussion. ∻ℳcCunicanℴ 11:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2226 days ago on 23 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:List of longest-reigning monarchs#Age at accession is an enormously useful thing to add? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 28 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Request for comment: Size of post-nominals? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2211 days ago on 7 December 2018) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please assess the consensus of this discussion and officially close it. Thanks in advance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2198 days ago on 21 December 2018) Needs closure. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2196 days ago on 23 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC - lawsuit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2222 days ago on 27 November 2018) I think it's safe to say that everything that needs to be said has been said 8 or 9 times and useful discussion has died down in this very-much-over-time discussion. If someone would like to be a hero and tackle this I'm sure we'd all be grateful. (COI notice: I was the RM closer.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am throwing my hat in the ring. But, this's needing a trio-closure. ∯WBGconverse 10:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, but please let an admin(s) do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- To editors Winged Blades of Godric and ErikHaugen: Can't always find three admins, so if two admins will help with the close, then one experienced non-admin along with them should be sufficient. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Recuse in light of this thread. Good luck in finding folks to close it.∯WBGconverse 05:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- This keeps up, and I'll close it. And ya'll know what outcome that will bring. EH will probably go "Off with her head!" Happy New Year, folks. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 17:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Recuse in light of this thread. Good luck in finding folks to close it.∯WBGconverse 05:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- To editors Winged Blades of Godric and ErikHaugen: Can't always find three admins, so if two admins will help with the close, then one experienced non-admin along with them should be sufficient. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, but please let an admin(s) do it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: Move review has been relisted to January 2019. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 08:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Paine Ellsworth, Amakuru put it back to November Hhkohh (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I note that Amakuru has reverted you. Relisting is not done to gain a consensus but to improve participation and if there ain't any consensus for a clear-outcome, No consensus (generally defaulting to endorse) is a perfectly valid closure. ∯WBGconverse 08:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lest we forget, no consensus at MRV may also result in relisting the RM. And, not to be argumentative, however relisting is most certainly done to gain a consensus! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Concur on first point. As to the latter, see WP:RELIST and point 2 of WP:RELISTBIAS; which though concerned with deletion-discussion; is pretty clear on the aspect of relisting a heavily-participated discussion to seek consensus.∯WBGconverse 10:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lest we forget, no consensus at MRV may also result in relisting the RM. And, not to be argumentative, however relisting is most certainly done to gain a consensus! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 09:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for the good faith effort to move it along, Paine, but I honestly don't think relisting is the answer here... everything that can be said has been said ten times already, and we just need it put out of its misery! Whether it's no consensus or not, I wouldn't like to prejudge - that's up to the closing admin... a case could be made for either overturn or no conensensus probably. Someone will deal with it eventually though. — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Only 10?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged Blades of Godric (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2196 days ago on 23 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility/Archive 9#To capitalize or decapitalize in bios? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
{{done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2233 days ago on 15 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2201 days ago on 17 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RFC: Hidden note in the lead section discussion? Please also remove {{DNAU}} template when you are done. Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}signed, Rosguill talk 21:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2240 days ago on 9 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: The RfC was archived without being closed. Don't know how this changes things, but the archive is available at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 148#RfC on schools' inclusion criteria. (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Newslinger talk 05:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Cunard: Thanks for listing this. I would like to add that the closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Newslinger talk 07:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2219 days ago on 30 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox election#RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2215 days ago on 4 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#Jewdas Passover event? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2198 days ago on 21 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C. politician)/Archive 3#RfC about whether to mention illegal parking habit? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Cunard This took way too long. {{Done}} ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2193 days ago on 26 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg#rfc rename to uber death? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{done}} as: "Consensus convincingly
against renaming article" by--John Cline (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2191 days ago on 28 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Reduce number of vandalism warning levels? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2188 days ago on 31 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Operation Storm#RfC about the result in infobox military conflict? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} 2 days ago by @L3X1: --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2203 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 15#Wikipedians by philosophy? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by GoldenRing 5 days ago --DannyS712 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2181 days ago on 6 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6#Category:Autism quackery? The discussion was reopened per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 12#Category:Autism quackery. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 23 January 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGAkids incident? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Vanamonde 4 days ago --DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2212 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: authority control? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Now in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 148, it would be nice if someone could close this! Fram (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fram: I'd be willing to close it, but I don't know what the procedure is if it has already been archived. Do I close it, and then post the result of the close? (Also I'm not an admin, so if don't think I should close a policy rfc that's fine) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think unarchiving it would be best, so people at VPP at least get to see the closure. I personally have no objection against a non-admin closure, no idea how others feel about this in this case of course. Fram (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'll give it a couple more days for any objections, then I'll draft a close and unarchive it. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have drafted a close here. Barring any objections, I'm going to close it in the archive and post my summary to the main VPP alerting people of the result. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think unarchiving it would be best, so people at VPP at least get to see the closure. I personally have no objection against a non-admin closure, no idea how others feel about this in this case of course. Fram (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fram: I'd be willing to close it, but I don't know what the procedure is if it has already been archived. Do I close it, and then post the result of the close? (Also I'm not an admin, so if don't think I should close a policy rfc that's fine) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}, result posted to WP:VPP. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2199 days ago on 20 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Description of criminal charges against Trump associates? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2545 days ago on 8 January 2018) This is getting complicated. I think the article in question should probably be trashed, thus Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astronomical_bodies_in_pseudoscience_and_the_paranormal, but User:Jehochman requested that we not have the discussion so that the merger discussion could end. I think there are bigger issues at play (we've discussed a bit on Jehochman's talk page), and he suggested I request a snow close for the merger discussion, which, as the AfD nominator, I would agree to though I'd like the discussion to continue for how to handle astronomical pseudoscience. In any case, in need of an admin to sort it out. jps (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion that is linked directly here was initiated by Richard3120 (talk · contribs) at 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) - more than a year ago. Despite being described as a merge request (it begins with a link to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#MERGE REQUESTS), it seems to indicate that another closely-related discussion took place elsewhere in December 2017 - but there is no link to that other discussion. It appears to have been intended to be no more than a notification of another discussion (in line with WP:MULTI), but the sentence "Discuss here." means that other people have used it as the actual discussion venue. @Richard3120: where was that earlier discussion held? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I'm not aware of another discussion having taken place. I just opened the discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal#Merger proposal on 8 January 2018 as an uninvolved editor, per a request from the IP address 108.210.216.182 made at WP:PM on 23 December 2017. Richard3120 (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{nd}}. Article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal. — Newslinger talk 09:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2203 days ago on 16 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 11#Request for comment: Periodic table article as three-peat TFA? There is related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Result of recent RfC?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (non-admin closure) as no consensus for implementation by --John Cline (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2293 days ago on 17 September 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC: Inclusion of expert opinions, views of pundits, activist groups, tweets, etc.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to come back to this one, because it, along with Racism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) look to be a combination of WP:POVFORK and WP:OR (the article titles scream it to begin with), while the RFC feels like just the end result of bureaucratizing all the problems of a POVFORK/OR combo, too. Incidentally, the articles smell of sock / possibly-banned-users (at cursory inspection; they're also relatively recently created). I can dive deeper into it if truly nobody else is going to (and if I even have time), but this looks like it could be an unnecessary pain to sift through when there might be more overriding/fundamental issues. I dunno;I might just be crazy. Others with better knowledge of British politics should please feel free to deal with this. --slakr\ talk / 04:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
- The issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject, so I would strongly suggest that the task of resolving this group of RfCs (some 18 of them!) should be assigned to a group of three administrators rather than simply "an experienced editor." Involved editors have already been making changes, such as this, to the article on the basis of perceived consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that because "the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject" and because of the socking mentioned by slakr, it is likely better to have a panel of three admins close the RfC. Pinging Primefac (talk · contribs), who closed one of the RfCs, for your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I bailed on it because it was just such a massive task. I don't think we need a three-editor panel for all of them (some of the discussions like #10 are nearly unanimous) but it might be worthwhile for some of the more nuanced ones. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- Greetings, Primefac. I maintain that one and the same group of at least three admins handles this. It's not so much an issue of difficulty as much as of the need for a consistent and consolidated process. It's a rather large RfC. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I bailed on it because it was just such a massive task. I don't think we need a three-editor panel for all of them (some of the discussions like #10 are nearly unanimous) but it might be worthwhile for some of the more nuanced ones. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- I agree that because "the issue of antisemitism in the Labour Party of the UK is a significant and controversial subject" and because of the socking mentioned by slakr, it is likely better to have a panel of three admins close the RfC. Pinging Primefac (talk · contribs), who closed one of the RfCs, for your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} by a with myself, Primefac, and DannyS712 each closing some. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2188 days ago on 30 December 2018) Seems clear there is no consensus for this proposal, though it has the occasional post from editors but mostly repetition of same arguments. There have been several complaints (see talk page) that the proposal is interfering with the function of the COI noticeboard (it should have been created on the talk page). Previous attempt to move it to the talk page was reverted with crude language from two users, one of which is the proposer. I suspect the proposer will only accept an admin closing this. Note that this is the 2nd RFC on the topic (the first was closed after 10 days in 2015), with no change of proposal, and IMO no change of arguments made or balance of opinion on the project. At the very least, could an admin move this to talk, to enable the COI noticeboard to function properly. -- Colin°Talk 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Being done by GoldenRing, Fish and karate, and Ymblanter... See discussion at WP:AN#Forming a panel. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by GoldenRing, Fish and karate, and Ymblanter. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2159 days ago on 29 January 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident#Merger proposal? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by PackMecEng. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2170 days ago on 18 January 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Messier object#Merger proposal? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2230 days ago on 19 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:G.I. Generation#RFC about the Federation Generation terminology? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2192 days ago on 27 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Eva Bartlett#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2190 days ago on 29 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2018 United States elections#RfC: "It was a blue wave" vs "Pundits disagree whether it was a blue wave"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2183 days ago on 5 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitch McConnell#RfC: Mitch McConnell and obstructionism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2183 days ago on 5 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Postmodern philosophy#RfC about relation to identity politics? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} as a (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2196 days ago on 23 December 2018) As this RfC approaches the 30 days mark and a lack of recent editor involvement, I believe the responses to date would require an uninvolved editor with closure experience to determine the appropriate outcome or extend the discussion. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed the discussion had stopped, and yet the initiator, despite requesting closure above, has unilaterally reopened it past the 30-day standard. -- Netoholic @ 22:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did not unilaterally reopen the RfC, I just reinstated the template with new data stamp due to Legobot removing it before the discussion was formally closed, per instruction at WP:RFCEND. Please assume good faith and do not accuse me of starting a new parallel discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 22:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I expect to spend extra time with this closing; within 24 hours, I will post a result. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum - I am still working this request. I have assessed consensus and am drafting its summary now. I must attend matters in real life and will not return until evening to conclude my efforts. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I gotta say, that's quite possibly the most un-detailed summary of a closure I've read in a while. Closed with prejudice? Yeesh. -- /Alex/21 03:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
{{Done}} (non-admin closure) as
no consensus, 
with prejudice[4] by --John Cline (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This closure has been voluntarily amended pursuant a consensus reached in discussion on my talk page.[5] A summary of the amended closure follows:
{{Done}} (non-admin closure) as
no consensus[6] by --John Cline (talk) 11:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2195 days ago on 24 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess consensus on the RfC -Which statement is better for the lede section of the MEK article? discussion? Thanks. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
On hold This has only been open 17 days. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to have been closed on 8 February 2019 by S Marshall. Should they have posted something here to that effect? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I don't think that is required, but regardless, this has been {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to have been closed on 8 February 2019 by S Marshall. Should they have posted something here to that effect? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2180 days ago on 8 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC:Navboxes for record producers? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2277 days ago on 2 October 2018) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Amazon (company)#History of Amazon? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2241 days ago on 8 November 2018) Is there an experienced editor able to assess the consensus at this discussion? Thanks! Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2224 days ago on 25 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Anatolia#RfC about opinion quote from art student? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2220 days ago on 29 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 29#Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region)? The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Discussion moved/relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region). If consensus can be assessed, feel free to close the discussion without waiting 7 days per WP:RELIST. Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2157 days ago on 31 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal my final two account restrictions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}: Archived without closure to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Appeal my final two account restrictions, brought up again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#My appeal has been archived before being closed, closed by User:Floquenbeam. (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2195 days ago on 24 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Matthias Corvinus#RfC: information about John Hunyadi in this article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2210 days ago on 9 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan#RfC on English variety and date format in Taiwan-related articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2194 days ago on 25 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Oswald Boelcke#Request for comment: Boelcke's legacy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} closed 2 days ago by @S Marshall --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2192 days ago on 27 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Indefinitely semiprotecting the refdesk? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- On hold waiting for response from Winged Blades of Godric ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Observation: Each of the Reference Desk pages still contains a prominent box at the top announcing that "It has been proposed that the Wikipedia Reference Desks be permanently closed. Please share your thoughts on the matter..." If there is not going to be a decision to close them, then that notice has to go away. I hope we won't be waiting a very long time for a response. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... and I will remove them now, 76.69.46.228. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 05:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2181 days ago on 6 January 2019) Greetings, could an experienced editor see if this little-frequented discussion has a consensus for or against a merge? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2171 days ago on 16 January 2019) Gone silent for over a week, long-standing discussion over whether the infobox should read "Los Angeles, California" or just "Los Angeles". IWI (chat) 23:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2218 days ago on 30 November 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 30#Category:Palestinian Christian communities? The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Discussion moved/relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Palestinian Christian communities. If consensus can be assessed, feel free to close the discussion without waiting 7 days per WP:RELIST. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (no consensus) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
AfD of Yemi Sawyerr
(Initiated 2152 days ago on 4 February 2019) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yemi Sawyerr No discussion since nomination besides my vote to speedy delete. Thank you all for your time. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 05:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted by Tone {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2190 days ago on 29 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkish occupation of northern Syria#RfC, article name? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note. Though I !voted in this RfC (and therefore am involved), I would still like to point out that the current tally is 6:2 opposed. (Non-administrator comment) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 04:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Rosguill, would you mind closing the other RfC as well? ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2180 days ago on 7 January 2019) Please could an experienced closer close this. There are good arguments either side and editors have expressed that this should be closed. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} (Non-administrator comment) Leviv ich 20:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2158 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer unblock of User:My Lord?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Oshwah. All set. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2153 days ago on 4 February 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DBigXray? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} was closed by @Boing! said Zebedee on 14 February --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2202 days ago on 17 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#"Datebot" (limited scope)? Please close this RfC after 16 January 2019. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 156#"Datebot" (limited_scope) without closure (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2162 days ago on 26 January 2019) Requesting formal closure of this merge discussion, which has been open for three weeks. czar 01:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @Izno --DannyS712 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2179 days ago on 9 January 2019) Closure requested for Talk:Mumble_rap#Proposed_merge_of_Mumble_rap_into_Emo_rap, which has been open for over a month. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2180 days ago on 7 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead be updated to reflect that Trump has continued to make false or misleading statements throughout his campaign and presidency?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} This took a while... ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 06:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2189 days ago on 30 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Albania–Greece relations#RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... There's a lot to review, but I'm on this one. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 06:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Will notify participants as well shortly. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 16:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2187 days ago on 1 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Year's Day#New Year's - bad punctuation?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2144 days ago on 13 February 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Aaron Lewis (musician)#Requested move 13 February 2019? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by @Dekimasu --DannyS712 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2178 days ago on 10 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jesus#rfc on Jesus' ancestry? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I just bumped the thread an additional 15 more days. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)- {{done}} (nac) Leviv ich 01:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2204 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: Teresa Shook criticism (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2204 days ago on 15 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: ADL criticism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- The discussion was archived before it was closed, and is available at Talk:Linda Sarsour/Archive 15#Request for comment: ADL criticism (Non-administrator comment) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2198 days ago on 20 December 2018) This RfC and the one immediately below are part of an ongoing dispute regarding mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht as a military honor. See related discussions at MILHIST project: [7][8] –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2198 days ago on 21 December 2018) See above for details. –dlthewave ☎ 18:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2180 days ago on 8 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC about double parenthetical disambiguation? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2169 days ago on 19 January 2019) Participants were all in agreement here, and I'd like to get started on making these changes, but it would be great if an editor could close the discussion first. Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2221 days ago on 27 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal? The closer should be familiar with WP:BOTPOL. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2191 days ago on 28 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Tamika Mallory#RfC on anti-semitism in lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I would close this one... if I could understand which sentence the editors wanted to include. Things weren't properly factored out for sure. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 06:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}}. Considering this, it seems this did not need that much of a formal close. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2185 days ago on 3 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Was archived to Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 47#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime without closure --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have marked this as {{done}} because, given the low participation and the fact that it has been archived, I do not believe that an official closure is needed. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict
(Initiated 2152 days ago on 4 February 2019) Could an administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Extended-confirmed protection for India-Pakistan conflict and close the thread? Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 05:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @Oshwah --DannyS712 (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2260 days ago on 20 October 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of data breaches/Archive 1#RfC on the inclusion of the Google+ incident? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2248 days ago on 1 November 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television episode#RfC on changing part of an If function? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2181 days ago on 6 January 2019) Hi. Would an experienced editor please close this RfC? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Working on seeing if this is possible for me to do. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)- This requires a user familiar with appropriate grammatical rules. Sorry, DannyS712. I looked up a lot of stuff about the "Demonstrative that," and I even tried reading this, but alas I could not understand the arguments in this RfC. I do, however, nominate TheSmartPersonUS1 to do it, though. They seem to be in the know about these sorts of things as they are listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject Grammar#Participants and are still an active contributor. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 23:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} I just did it after the previous closure was reverted. All set. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2176 days ago on 12 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Notable Names Database? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2171 days ago on 17 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pamela Geller#RFC: "right-wing extremist" in the first sentence? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2169 days ago on 19 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2167 days ago on 21 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Covington Catholic High School#Request for comment: Including material on the incident? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2166 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Rabbi Akiva#Can a section be added in article entitled "Quotes"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC India railway stations? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 02:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 03:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network#RfC about the last sentence in the lead page? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators/2019 request for comment on inactivity standards? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Cheers! bd2412 T 02:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2175 days ago on 13 January 2019) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 13#Category:Real Madrid presidents Two admins made "speedy renaming" vote and one more user support the move as well as me as nominator. Matthew hk (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2153 days ago on 4 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 February#Raul Julia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2174 days ago on 14 January 2019) Whenever someone has a moment, could you please assess consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_to_add_Template:Unreferenced_and_Template:No_footnotes_to_pages_(single_run)? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2168 days ago on 20 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism#Time to move? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} the discussion has been closed; the page has been moved --DannyS712 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Boomerang proposal for Stefka Bulgaria
(Initiated 2151 days ago on 6 February 2019) Would an admin close my report on hounding and harassment by another user, please? --Mhhossein talk 03:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} whole thread should be closed per above request by Levivich. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2171 days ago on 17 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Rfc about whether public domain list articles present OR concerns? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 20:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Link ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 22:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin:Black Kite reported by Mountain157
(Initiated 2133 days ago on 23 February 2019) Would an admin close this thread started by Mountain157 and its resulting proposal per WP:SNOW? Thank you~! ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Reopened ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2212 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#Category:Afrotropic ecozone biota. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. No changes made in a month. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2212 days ago on 7 December 2018) At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7, lot of these that have been open for a month. They probably won't be difficult closes, but this topic has a way of always being controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
- Links to the supercentenarian CfDs:
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:African-American supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Singaporean supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Spanish supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Nigerian supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Hungarian supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:German supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Turkish supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Ukrainian supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Puerto Rican supercentenarians
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 7#Category:Norwegian supercentenarians
- Cunard (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: all above discussions except one have meanwhile been closed as merge. The African-American discussion is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Category:African-American supercentenarians has been relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Category:African-American supercentenarians. Steel1943 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} but will be
Relisted here for clarity sake. ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, this was
Partly done ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, this was
- {{Not done}} but will be
(Initiated 2130 days ago on 26 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin#Proposed merge with Trayvon Martin? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
In progress ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 18:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)- {{Done}} Please see the AfD debate ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 18:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2212 days ago on 7 December 2018) Previous request for closure listed here. An experienced editor is requested to please close the following discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 4#Category:African-American supercentenarians. Thank you, ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2141 days ago on 16 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#Requested move 16 February 2019 and Talk:1993 Aurora shooting? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#Requested move 16 February 2019 was last relisted on Sunday, February 24, 2019. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
CFDs (general)
(Initiated 2234 days ago on 15 November 2018) General comment about CFD closures (not sure if this is the right place to post but please move it to the correct place if you know a better place): there has been hardly any administrators' closures at WP:CFD for multiple weeks on a row now. Consequently, the backlog is growing rapidly. Would a few administrators tackle the pile together please? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} in the sense that administrators started to close discussions again. There is still a considerable backlog. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2141 days ago on 16 February 2019) This is a recent nomination but given the fact that it is a topic of wide interest it would be helpful if an admin would close this discussion and implement the outcome on a reasonably short term. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2469 days ago on 25 March 2018) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Gender feminism#Proposed dispersal? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, but with the conclusion that there is No Consensus. There were good arguments in favor of retention of the topic, including as a book topic, and of dispersal to other articles. Recommend a new RFC which can be neutrally publicized at various noticeboards and projects. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2158 days ago on 29 January 2019) Could someone please close Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iranian opposition articles? Thank you. Leviv ich 15:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Added "|type=block" to {{Initiated}} ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 16:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @Vanamonde93 with this edit. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2128 days ago on 28 February 2019) Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion. Kindest Regards, ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 16:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} yesterday by @Dlohcierekim --DannyS712 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2133 days ago on 23 February 2019) Could an uninvolved administrator please review the consensus and close this discussion? Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @MSGJ in Special:Diff/886765920. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} currently undergoing active major edits as part of a possible compromise. Depending on the effectiveness of these edits in reducing the page size, this will likely be followed by additional discussion, at which point it may or may not be appropriate to nominate the discussion for closure. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 06:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2161 days ago on 27 January 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess whether there is consensus for this proposal. Many thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Consensus. Recommend tweaking the wording and more publicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2155 days ago on 2 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cultural impact of Michael Jackson#Should this page and/or a "Michael Jackson in popular culture" page be a Wikipedia article?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2153 days ago on 4 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Falun Gong#RFC on lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} the discussion on the talk page is more like a normal content-based discussion than an RfC, and does not need an official close at this time. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2151 days ago on 6 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Going commando#RFC on nude photos in Going commando? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2161 days ago on 27 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#RfC: Article size? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- {{done}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2154 days ago on 3 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 4#(Controversial?) change to Flag of Austria-Hungary? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - closed as no consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2151 days ago on 6 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Space elevator#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - There is a consensus against the inclusion of the specific graph that was proposed. See closing note at RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2156 days ago on 1 February 2019) Could an administrator please assess the consensus for this debate and take appropriate action? Kindest Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2152 days ago on 5 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:User scripts#User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2139 days ago on 18 February 2019) I just refactored the discussion threads. Would an uninvolved and experienced editor please close any sufficiently opposed alternative proposal per WP:SNOW? There are currently four alternatives to the main proposal, so please use best judgement for which ones should be closed and which possibly should be kept open (if any). Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @DeltaQuad --DannyS712 (talk) 05:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2212 days ago on 7 December 2018) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The discussion has been open for almost two months now. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Discussion relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#People of African descent. Steel1943 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. It's been listed here for about a month and a half now. No interest in closing this soon has been shown. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2133 days ago on 24 February 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. The first of numerous portal deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @Premeditated Chaos --DannyS712 (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2131 days ago on 26 February 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by @Premeditated Chaos --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2131 days ago on 26 February 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Cotingas are a family of birds. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} was @Premeditated Chaos --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2159 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:The Matrix (franchise)/Archive 2#Request for Comment - Crediting The Wachowskis? Thank you. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2121 days ago on 8 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singular: Act II? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: {{not done}} There were 64 AfDs filed or relisted that day, none of the others have been brought here - in fact it's rare for an AfD to come here at all: most of those in the archives of this page were brought here by yourself. Why should this one be given preference over the other AfDs from 8 March? It's not as if we are short of AfD closers. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2130 days ago on 26 February 2019) Listed in this section since not a formal RfC; could an experienced editor please assess the consensus of the discussion and close it? UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} [9]: "overwhelming support here for a hiatus on the creation of portals using semi-automated tools". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2126 days ago on 2 March 2019) The page move has been undertaken by @TrailBlzr: but the RM discussion has not been closed (despite a request). GiantSnowman 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Djsasso --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2148 days ago on 8 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Enquirer? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2146 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: TASS? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 04:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2128 days ago on 1 March 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Partly done I have marked this as {{done}}, since of the first 4 proposals, #1 was closed by Swarm, #2 and #3 were withdrawn by Legacypac, and #4 (creating a new speedy deletion criterion) is requested to stay open for a full 30 days, giving it at least 2 more weeks for discussion. Finally, #5 was only proposed on 14 March 2019, so it is not suitable for closure yet. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2142 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Crunchbase? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 07:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2326 days ago on 15 August 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dental implant#Merger discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2203 days ago on 16 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Australia#Request for Comment on the inclusion of "God Save the Queen" as the official Royal Anthem of Australia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2112 days ago on 17 March 2019) This can be safely closed under WP:SNOW. WWGB (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- It cannot, as the arguments are very split between merge and delete, which are two distinct outcomes; while it is clear the article is not going to be kept, allowing the AFD to run its course is necessary to allow the community to determine the most appropriate outcome. Fish+Karate 12:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- Marked as {{not done}} so the request will be archived - the closure was not done per Fish and karate above. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Please don't use
{{done}}, since it hasn't been. The{{not done}}will be detected by ClueBot III, as I explained at User talk:Redrose64#Quick questions about WP:ANRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Please don't use
(Initiated 2118 days ago on 11 March 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Acoustic Dreams (disambiguation)#Requested move 11 March 2019? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{already done}} - moved by JHunterJ and closed by Dekimasu --DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2157 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an involved inexperienced editor please supervote at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard? Thank you. Leviv ich 07:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Levivich, you're killing me here! lmao –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- In progress --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 08:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2192 days ago on 27 December 2018) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Michel Temer#RfC: Leaving office, date? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as consensus that Temer left office on December 31, 2018.- MrX 🖋 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2166 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as: rough consensus for not splitting the article. - MrX 🖋 11:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2164 days ago on 24 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2139 days ago on 17 February 2019) Requesting someone close this based on the developed consensus. Thanks. Nihlus 13:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- In progress --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 14:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2129 days ago on 28 February 2019) Since I am an involved editor, could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Johann Mickl#Community reassessment? I beleive the general consensus is to delist the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2141 days ago on 16 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Bustle? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 08:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2175 days ago on 13 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Suki Waterhouse#RfC on Personal life? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- On hold its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2164 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#RfC On DeLong Blogpost? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- On hold its pretty evenly split and hasn't had very much discussion --DannyS712 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Marking as {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2652 days ago on 23 September 2017) could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus on this long-standing merge proposal, discussed at Talk:Team Rubicon#Proposed merge with William McNulty (relief organization founder). Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2137 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements#Rapid request to merge with Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign? The formal RfC period has run and The last comment was made nine days ago. Thanks, Tvc 15 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- This was not a formal RfC, the
{{rfc}}tag was never used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- Thanks Redrose64 🌹, I've edited my comment. Is this still the right place to request closure of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, especially in the "Other types" section rather than "RfCs"? Thanks, Tvc 15 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Redrose64 🌹, I've edited my comment. Is this still the right place to request closure of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, especially in the "Other types" section rather than "RfCs"? Thanks, Tvc 15 (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2179 days ago on 9 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American International Group/Archives/2019#RfC on the inclusion of Hank Greenberg's meeting in Russia? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2135 days ago on 22 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#RfC: Restrict technical ability to move categories? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2159 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki#Request for comments about 2017 charges? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2154 days ago on 3 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:World War I#German Leaders and Hussein bin Ali? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2153 days ago on 4 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Cathy McMorris Rodgers#Inclusion of biographical history? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2146 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (broadcasting)#RfC - defunct station disambiguators? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2110 days ago on 19 March 2019) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_19#Template:Los_Caminantes? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2145 days ago on 12 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Xennials#RFC - Lede? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2144 days ago on 13 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Gawker? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2137 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Keith Urban#RFC about country in the lead? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2131 days ago on 26 February 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 26#Hip hop song stubs? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand your impatience to have things closed. I initiated the CfD and I'm very happy to let it run its course until a volunteer has had time to adequately review and assess the discussion. Things do get backlogged once in a while. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars:, we are almost at 30 days, so we might as well close this. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2115 days ago on 14 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals? I think that every discussion has been open for one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}: Proposals 1 and 3.5 were closed by Swarm, 2 and 3 were withdrawn, 4 is an RfC that should stay open for 30 days, the first survey is proposal 5 was snow closed by Pythoncoder, the second survey of proposal 5 isn't ready for closure and was only opened on 14 March, proposal 6
is an RfC that should stay open for 30 dayswas withdrawn, and proposal 7 was only opened today. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2158 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Marriott International#RFC: citation style. Matthew hk (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus for option A - inline reference definitions. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2155 days ago on 1 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Telesur? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Taking into account the quantity and strength of the arguments, and evidence cited by several users, consensus exists to deprecate Telesur as a source (Option 4). - MrX 🖋 22:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2146 days ago on 11 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Venezuelanalysis? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 04:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as consensus for option 3. - MrX 🖋 23:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2211 days ago on 7 December 2018) Already relisted once. Discussion stalled since 25 February 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Fayenatic london a few days ago. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2137 days ago on 19 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gibraltar#Request for comment: population movement after 1704? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2137 days ago on 19 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Illegal immigration to the United States and crime#RFC on including an embedded list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the U.S.? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 23:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2158 days ago on 29 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Killing of Aya Maasarwe#Description of Aya nationality? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
On holdComment no consensus yet - "Israeli" has 10 !votes while "Palestinian-Israeli" and "Palestinian citizen of Israel" each have 6. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2135 days ago on 21 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC: Stamford Hill? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — JFG talk 19:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2127 days ago on 2 March 2019) Consensus is quite obvious; nevertheless I would prefer that an uninvolved editor formally close this, because it affects several articles. — JFG talk 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} and I will note that this feels like an edge case per WP:RFCCLOSE as to whether a formal close was even needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, and thanks for your help. — JFG talk 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} and I will note that this feels like an edge case per WP:RFCCLOSE as to whether a formal close was even needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2197 days ago on 21 December 2018) This RfC had a bad close and was recently re-opened per the request of Swarm (talk · contribs), so we're now looking for an uninvolved admin to come in and do a close. Thanks for the help! - Sdkb (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{done}} Cinderella157 (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2137 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#RFC about assigning classes to demoted Featured articles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2136 days ago on 20 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Center for Immigration Studies#RfC Reboot: Should hate group designation be mentioned in the lead?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2135 days ago on 22 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Electric smoking system#RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2133 days ago on 24 February 2019) Simple problem but hard to reach consensus. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2128 days ago on 1 March 2019) Since Proposal 4 is approaching one month, could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thousands of Portals? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2128 days ago on 1 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab Dissenter merge and close the discussion? The last comment was ten days ago. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2168 days ago on 20 January 2019) Discussion stalled since Feb 20. Looks to me like a straightforward close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2112 days ago on 17 March 2019) Could an uninvolved admin look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006#WP:NOTHERE editing by User:Ted hamiltun and assess the consensus? It appears pretty clear here, and has been open for 12 days (a long time for ANI), with no new comments being added in days. Could an admin action and close this ASAP? Thanks! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dusti. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2139 days ago on 18 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Request for comments on the 'political position' parameter of the political party infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There seems to be a weak consensus for removing the political position parameter, but given that only a handful of editors participated in the discussion I'm hesitant to rule in favor of a consensus with such wide-ranging consequences. signed, Rosguill talk 18:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have relisted the RfC to solicit more input. {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2141 days ago on 16 February 2019) Could the consensus on whether to delist or keep the Good Article status of this article be assessed please. I will help out with the technical side of the close if needed. AIRcorn (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- We don't normally handle GA (or FA) matters here, hence the absence of
garfrom the valid values for the|type=parameter of the{{initiated}}template. Have you asked at WT:GAR? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- I usually get a better response here. Not many editors are interested in the GAR process, I have ended up closing most of them myself in the last year or so. I don't feel comfortably closing this one given my edits to address the concerns were reverted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. I think it is reasonable to request closes of Wikipedia:Good article reassessments here since WT:GAR does not get much of a response compared to this noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- I usually get a better response here. Not many editors are interested in the GAR process, I have ended up closing most of them myself in the last year or so. I don't feel comfortably closing this one given my edits to address the concerns were reverted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2125 days ago on 4 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Module:Adjacent stations/sandbox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by B dash. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2109 days ago on 20 March 2019) One of a number of non-unanimous portal or complicated MfDs that were clogging up MfD to the point that they were no longer displaying properly on the page. The teechnical issues have been fixed by Xaosflux, but the discussions still need closure. I am involved by way of having strong opinions on portals, so I'm avoiding closing contentious portal MfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2107 days ago on 22 March 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 22#Template:Infobox Finnish municipality? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2104 days ago on 25 March 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 25#Mike Schmitz? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Jo-Jo Eumerus (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2185 days ago on 2 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion has meanwhile been relisted. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BrownHairedGirl (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2110 days ago on 19 March 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 19#User:Rockstone35/list of banned users? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment and close the discussion? I previously closed it, but the close was challenged, so I reopened it. - MrX 🖋 11:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 22 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Subscription required#RfC: Replace template with CS1/2 mechanism where possible? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think a formal close is unnecessary for this one as it just seems to be a discussion of the implementation of some technical specifications without much disagreement, but would appreciate it if an editor more experienced with templates could confirm this assessment. signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think a formal close would be useful for the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. The RfC initiator wrote:
Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Maybe the purpose of this RfC is not clear? I will write a bot to fix this problem. It's no problem (well it won't be an easy bot). But, I can't open a BRFA as the only person who wants a bot. Thus this RfC. It's where you say "Yeah I want a bot" so the BRFA admins can check off community support for the bot.
- I think a formal close would be useful for the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. The RfC initiator wrote:
(Initiated 2158 days ago on 30 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ministry of Transport#RfC: Transport governance article titles? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2143 days ago on 14 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#RfC regarding the use of "alt-text" for all FACs? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: archived without closure to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive76 --DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Alpha3031 (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2141 days ago on 15 February 2019) Would a panel of three experienced editors (or administrators if they so choose) please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC? The closure will be a bit of a minefield, with many simultaneous discussions taking place in the various sub-sections. The closure is already overdue since the closure date was set as 17 March and listed at the top of the page from the outset, a date which has now passed. This RfC was conducted in accordance with the following ARBCOM motion: [10], and its closure should conform to the motion as well. Closers might want to additionally take a look at discussions on the corresponding talk page for the RfC Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC. - Wiz9999 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- In progress Closing RfC discussion for recording consensus. On hold Until 2 more editors are willing to close. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 17:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @QEDK: I'd like to help - only 1 more needed --DannyS712 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: [11] His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I probably should not have an opinion as someone who is volunteering as one the closers but I do agree with FPAS' viewpoint that editors might regard Danny as inexperienced due to their relative inexperience in edits and age. I'm moving this to the main AN noticeboard for more visibility — and more opinions as to who should be part of the closing panel; and an opportunity for editors to opine on the suitability of editors. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 12:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- He seems to me like an editor who has been racking up a high edit count by means of a lot of routine gnoming work in the areas of XfDs, responding to edit requests and the like, but no substantial content maintenance experience in politically sensitive areas, and nothing I can find that shows him deeply engaging with complex policy issues. Sorry, but no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: [11] His level of contribution seems adequate to me, despite the 6 month period his account has been active. - Wiz9999 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712:: sorry, nothing personal against you, but I'm not quite convinced you have the necessary experience for this task. What we need here are highly experienced editors who are deeply familiar with the relevant content policies and with the intricacies of content creation in POV-sensitive areas. Sorry, but you've been around only for six months and I can find no record of you dealing with policy issues of this complexity before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Neutrality, BD2412, and QEDK --DannyS712 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2115 days ago on 13 March 2019) This MfD is so old and so horrible that it somehow got removed from the MfD "Old Business" section despite not being closed. Please, someone close it - I commented, so I can't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC) (Note: it's been replaced on the page, but it's still in need of a close ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC))
- {{Done}}, hadn't realized it was listed here! Probably should've checked. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2113 days ago on 15 March 2019) I feel that the discussion has received adequate input for a close to occur. A participant in the discussion who has !voted for deletion later relisted it, possibly in hopes for more delete !votes to potentially be posted. North America1000 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2113 days ago on 16 March 2019) One of a number of non-unanimous portal or complicated MfDs that were clogging up MfD to the point that they were no longer displaying properly on the page. The teechnical issues have been fixed by Xaosflux, but the discussions still need closure. I am involved by way of having strong opinions on portals, so I'm avoiding closing contentious portal MfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed[12] by User:Amorymeltzer on 02:22, 11 April 2019. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2104 days ago on 25 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Hearts (disambiguation)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2098 days ago on 31 March 2019) can someone close the discussion at Talk:Chowkidar_Chor_Hai#Requested_move_31_March_2019 --DBigXrayᗙ 07:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} for now - relisted. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2139 days ago on 17 February 2019) This RfC needs to be reclosed after the intial one was reverted through AN. If you close it, please be mindful of the actual arguments made and the consensus reached. Nihlus 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2157 days ago on 30 January 2019) I'm looking for the closure of the RFC if consensus has been reached. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 15:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Tbhotch: {{done}}. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2137 days ago on 19 February 2019) Could an experienced editor please review the consensus at Talk:Aurora, Illinois shooting#RfC: Victim names? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - RFC is still active. There are reasonable arguments being advanced both for and against, so that the snowball closure rule does not apply. RFC left open. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Robert McClenon:, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Bus stop:, I have moved the discussion back to the talk page, and changed the archive age to 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much @Jax 0677:, that looks perfect, to me. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Bus stop:, I have moved the discussion back to the talk page, and changed the archive age to 30 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I don't want to close it as I am a participant in it. I wanted it un-archived to allow further discussion. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Bus stop: You are allowed to close it even if its archived, but if you want I suggest manually copy-pasting it from the archive to the talk page, with a note explaining. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to un-archive the RfC as the bot has archived it? Bus stop (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I tried to say at User talk:Jax 0677, and was told by Jax0677 to provide diffs and keep the discussion in one place, when I was trying to keep the discussion in a less public place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: Indeed, it's been open for 16 days; but WP:RFCs typically run for thirty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Robert McClenon:, the RFC has been open for over one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Reply - @Bus stop:, good to hear, we can close the discussion at the end of this week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - @Robert McClenon:, this discussion, which is now close to 150 kB in size, has now run for 30 days, and can be closed or relisted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Jax 0677 - I do not plan to close this RFC. For two reasons, both of which I do not need to disclose, I might not be neutral. Also, RFCs are not relisted. XFDs, which run for 7 days, may be relisted, but RFCs, which run for 30 days, are not relisted. They may be closed as No Consensus, and the closer may advise that a new RFC be posted, but they are not relisted in the way that XFDs are. Perhaps you are confusing different procedures. If so, please read the policies on Requests for Comments and Deletion and Deletion Debates. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - @Robert McClenon:, thanks for observing WP:COI. Note that I said "closed or relisted", which means not that it should ever be relisted, but that I am indifferent between the two. Regarding the 30 days minimum for RFC, I will keep it in mind in the future, but I never asked any closer to go against policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Jax 0677 - See my comments on your talk page. No, I do not have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: RfCs can be relisted - Cunard (talk · contribs) does it frequently - see WP:RFC#Length, paragraph beginning "To extend a current RfC". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Redrose64 - Okay. As long as I am not told that I should be closing an RFC that hasn't run 30 days, and as long as I am not planning to close the Aurora RFC for two reasons that have nothing to do with COI, fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: My understanding is that an RfC is no different from an ordinary content discussion in the following regard: It can be closed whenever it seems to have run its course, when all stated arguments have been sufficiently discussed and the likelihood of any significant new arguments is deemed to approach zero. That can be one week or twelve weeks or more (I recently closed an RfC after 8 days), and it is not connected to the amount of time before the bot de-lists the RfC. If most RfCs are closed after 30 days, that's only because (1) editors misinterpret the de-listing as "time to close" and (2) there is often resistance to closing "early" even if the circumstances warrant it, and most of us prefer to avoid that controversy. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Redrose64 - Okay. As long as I am not told that I should be closing an RFC that hasn't run 30 days, and as long as I am not planning to close the Aurora RFC for two reasons that have nothing to do with COI, fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: RfCs can be relisted - Cunard (talk · contribs) does it frequently - see WP:RFC#Length, paragraph beginning "To extend a current RfC". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Jax 0677 - See my comments on your talk page. No, I do not have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - @Robert McClenon:, thanks for observing WP:COI. Note that I said "closed or relisted", which means not that it should ever be relisted, but that I am indifferent between the two. Regarding the 30 days minimum for RFC, I will keep it in mind in the future, but I never asked any closer to go against policy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - It is true that the closer will need to distinguish between statements of position (!votes), some of them well-reasoned, and a lot of mostly marginal discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - User:Jax 0677 - I do not plan to close this RFC. For two reasons, both of which I do not need to disclose, I might not be neutral. Also, RFCs are not relisted. XFDs, which run for 7 days, may be relisted, but RFCs, which run for 30 days, are not relisted. They may be closed as No Consensus, and the closer may advise that a new RFC be posted, but they are not relisted in the way that XFDs are. Perhaps you are confusing different procedures. If so, please read the policies on Requests for Comments and Deletion and Deletion Debates. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
{{done}}. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2132 days ago on 25 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States#Request for comment: Aggregation of rankings? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2126 days ago on 3 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Century#RfC: Describing positions about the beginning of centuries AD? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2123 days ago on 6 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Carnage (comics)#merge back with Cletus Kasady? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2169 days ago on 19 January 2019) Proposal to merge two project pages. Would an experienced editor please assess and close the discussion? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 19:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Implementing edit filter warnings for deprecated sources
(Initiated 2168 days ago on 20 January 2019) I don't think this was advertised as an RfC, but either way it would probably benefit from a formal closure by an experienced editor. Sunrise (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't a formal RfC - no
{{rfc}}tag was used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC) - I just requested a closure of the same discussion, but didn't realize this request was already active (in the "RfCs" section). I second this request, and have moved it to "Other types of closing requests". — Newslinger talk 05:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2112 days ago on 16 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? BC1278 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 12 April 2019
- {{done}}. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2104 days ago on 25 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Thread archived without official closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#RfC Closure Review (Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race), original closure reverted, RfC (Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#RfC on names of transgender contestants) reclosed by Rosguill --DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} to record the consensus and outcome. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2124 days ago on 5 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ilhan Omar#Request for Comment: Should Anti-semitism accusations be included in the lede?? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2133 days ago on 23 February 2019) Could an experienced editor relist these, or assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/February? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- Stub sorting proposals don't get relisted, they stay on the same monthly page until closed. See WP:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure item 6. I'm guessing that Pegship (talk · contribs), who usually closes these, is letting debate proceed for a while longer - after all, there are still some open from November 2018. Pegship, do you want somebody else to close these? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- If anyone can determine a consensus, they're welcome to close them. I've left them un-closed just to see if anyone has more to say; if not, I'll be happy to close them by end of March, which is not that long a stretch for the (much-depleted) troupe of stub sorters. Cheers! Her Pegship (speak) 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pegship: march has ended, and no one commented on the proposals since March 18. Any updates? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have closed the discussions, though I'm not the only person qualified to do so. I wasn't sure what conclusions had actually been reached, so I took a guess. Her Pegship (speak) 20:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Pegship: march has ended, and no one commented on the proposals since March 18. Any updates? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- If anyone can determine a consensus, they're welcome to close them. I've left them un-closed just to see if anyone has more to say; if not, I'll be happy to close them by end of March, which is not that long a stretch for the (much-depleted) troupe of stub sorters. Cheers! Her Pegship (speak) 22:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pegship. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2135 days ago on 21 February 2019) Would an administrator (as it's about deletion policy an admin is needed) please assess the consensus of this discussion and formally close it. Although consensus looks (to me as someone involved) clear, it does need formal closure to avoid a similar discussion in the near future. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2120 days ago on 9 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Points Guy? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2163 days ago on 25 January 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/January? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Pegship --DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2110 days ago on 18 March 2019) Could an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals#2010s single stubs? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2102 days ago on 27 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2019 March#Patrick Moore (consultant)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by StraussInTheHouse (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2107 days ago on 22 March 2019) One of a number of non-unanimous portal or complicated MfDs that were clogging up MfD to the point that they were no longer displaying properly on the page. The teechnical issues have been fixed by Xaosflux, but the discussions still need closure. I am involved by way of having strong opinions on portals, so I'm avoiding closing contentious portal MfDs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it got relisted a few days ago, but there's been (somewhat active) participation in the past couple days, so I'd be inclined to at least let it go a bit longer. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Amorymeltzer (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2103 days ago on 26 March 2019) This has been going for a while and discussion seems to have petered out. Would an admin please assesses the consensus? Gimubrc (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2080 days ago on 17 April 2019) I had thought that narrowing to two choices would be welcome, especially when the closer of the last RM told us "Feel free to re-request the move, perhaps with a more specific proposed title." Somehow it has not been viewed with the purpose I had intended, with a snowball of opposes and several attacks on my character of having some devious underlying agenda. I'd speedy close it myself but who knows what will be thought of me for doing so. Could any non-involved please speedy close this RM that I opened? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2124 days ago on 5 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Conspiracy theory#Lead (RfC)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- closing... --DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2118 days ago on 10 March 2019) Needs an un-involved editor to close regarding place and place-name. Thanks in advance. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by ElectroChip123 (diff) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2113 days ago on 16 March 2019) Can an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Talk:Companion (Doctor Who)#Request for comment on notes format and close the discussion? Thanks in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 18:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2110 days ago on 18 March 2019) Can an uninvolved experienced editor please assess consensus at Template talk:Article history#RfC on proposed link in template and close the discussion? It is a fairly technical question unlikely to garner many more comments. Ergo Sum 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2100 days ago on 29 March 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban appeal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive307#Topic ban appeal. I am waiting for a formal close. Capitals00 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Capitals00: I've closed it. Not sure where things are logged, so drop by my talkpage if you need any other pages changed. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} (template needed for archiving bot --DannyS712 (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 6#Bridges by city & Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 12#Bridges by city in Ukraine
(Initiated 2181 days ago on 6 January 2019) Would an admin assess the consensus here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: the Bridges by city CfD was relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 8#Bridges by city. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by DeltaQuad, who closed the "by city" CfD (diff), and B dash, who closed the "by city in Ukraine" CfD (diff). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2165 days ago on 23 January 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#RfC On DeLong Blogpost? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2159 days ago on 29 January 2019) Can an uninvolved admin close this discussion and evaluate the consensus please? Mstrojny (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- On hold the last contribution to the discussion was today and there is no overwhelming consensus either way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- RfC relisted to try to solicit more input. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{not done}} given that it was just relisted, and so far there are only a handful of !votes, there is not enough participation in the discussion about changing a guideline to warrant a close at this time. It can be added here in the future if it becomes ripe for closure. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2108 days ago on 21 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Slavery#RfC regarding the lead image? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2513 days ago on 9 February 2018) Discussion has been open since February 2018, is it alright if someone were to look at this? AtlasDuane (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2115 days ago on 13 March 2019) Five proposals regarding CSD criterion G5 and paid editing, only three of which received any significant input. RfC tag removed by a bot today, last comment was 5 April. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Winged Blades of Godric is closing... --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2175 days ago on 12 January 2019)
The RfC expired a long time ago. The proposal is to replace the entire current article with the entire expand draft. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2175 days ago on 13 January 2019) Issue/suggestion not clearly stated at the outset, multiple edits in question, low participation, overall a mess. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed as no consensus. SITH (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2121 days ago on 8 March 2019) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Gender feminism#Request for comment: merge proposal? Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2107 days ago on 21 March 2019) I am requesting a technical "Close without prejudice" of this RFC. The RFC is effectively a re-run of an earlier one at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system/Archive_1#RfC: Should the comparison table in the article use a color scheme accessible to color-blind users?, where the consensus was to select a scheme accessible to color-blind readers. The latest incarnation of the RFC was initiated by an editor now blocked for sockpuppetry. The RFC itself is contaminated by sockpuppetry, as well as putting forward a proposal that deviates from Wikipedia policy. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I cannot close this because I am WP:INVOLVED, but I urge the closer to look at two separate issues here: (i) is there a need for additional level(s); (ii) is there a need to alter the colour scheme of the existing levels in order to fit in the desired new level(s). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2106 days ago on 23 March 2019)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor kindly close the Rfc to nail the coffin on the edit war behind it. Made this close request as the nominator of the Rfc. Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2121 days ago on 7 March 2019) This TfD has been open for over two months, with the last comment more than a month ago. Could someone please close it? * Pppery * has returned 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2153 days ago on 4 February 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bohemian Rhapsody (film)#RFC about listing Dexter Fletcher in the infobox? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2133 days ago on 23 February 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rfc: company-histories.com? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2122 days ago on 6 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Fascism#RfC: Should "right wing" be added to definition of fascism? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- The RfC opened on March 6th and was closed by bot after 30 days. petrarchan47คุก 02:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't "closed" - Legobot always removes a
{{rfc}}tag thirty days after the next timestamp following the tag. This is not closure; bots are not able to judge consensus so they cannot close a discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)- Oh, thanks. This is my first time asking for an RfC close, my terminology is wrong. petrarchan47คุก 01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't "closed" - Legobot always removes a
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2122 days ago on 7 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/Archive 1#Demonym? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2117 days ago on 12 March 2019) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#Independent Jewish Voices, the Jewish Socialists' Group and Jewish Voice for Peace? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2116 days ago on 13 March 2019) A contributor has suggested that this RfC (which has now had the RfC tag removed by bot as the standard 30-day discussion period has elapsed) should be reviewed and closed by an experienced editor or admin. Last comments were on 6 April. Muzilon (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2618 days ago on 27 October 2017) Would an uninvolved editor please assess the consensus for/against a merge at Talk:Azad Kashmir Regiment#Proposed merge with Azad Kashmir Regular Force. Klbrain (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2110 days ago on 18 March 2019) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Caryn Marooney#Merger proposal? — Newslinger talk 02:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
(Initiated 2086 days ago on 12 April 2019) Could an admin please close this? It is a contentious issue.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- {{done}} by StraussInTheHouse --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)