Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 31
 | 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#user:Za-ari-masen....
(Initiated 1576 days ago on 2 September 2020) Need formal closure of the ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1046#user:Za-ari-masen_POV_pushing,_removing_citations,_and_referenced_texts_and_general_WP:DE since a topic ban was proposed and it saw participation by more than a dozen editors. Orientls (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, discussion was already archived and there's no consensus for sanctions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#RfC:_Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute_(MEMRI)
(Initiated 1636 days ago on 4 July 2020) Pretty polarised response on this one. Can I request an experienced closer close the discussion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, there don't appear to be any content decisions hinging on the outcome of this discussion. As MEMRI primarily produces primary source documents, citations to it will primarily be contextualized by other sources; cases where we would actually be directly relying on MEMRI's reliability are going to be extremely rare. Thus, I don't see the value of trying to tease out a consensus from a clearly polarized discussion. I had already posted a surface-level assessment of the discussion at WP:New page patrol source guide#Israel/Palestine which I think is sufficient. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1600 days ago on 9 August 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please assist in closing the discussion? PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1553 days ago on 26 September 2020) Upon receiving an explanation regarding the file at the discussion, the nominator has withdrawn, and no other commentary has ensued as of this post. Qualifies for speedy keep. North America1000 17:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1575 days ago on 3 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion and close it? -- Johnosaunders (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by SITH (talk) at 20:15 on 26 September 2020 (UTC) – P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 05:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1603 days ago on 6 August 2020) Nardog (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1552 days ago on 27 September 2020) This has only been open a few days, however, it deals with a sensitive WP:BLP question and - at 5-0 in support - is currently trending to a WP:SNOW close. Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1596 days ago on 13 August 2020)This well attended discussion has run its course and would benefit from closure by an administrator or experienced editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Mz7. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1557 days ago on 22 September 2020) – Asking for closure of this discussion, please. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 08:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1665 days ago on 6 June 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please evaluate consensus in this discussion? Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by JzG signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 9 July 2020) Would an uninvolved editor or admin please evaluate consensus in this discussion? Note: the discussion spans several subsections. - MrX 🖋 15:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
| Collapsed side discussion. starship.paint (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1603 days ago on 6 August 2020) Nardog (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by JzG signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1600 days ago on 10 August 2020) The RfC was to make a minor edit to a paragraph and add a clarifying second paragraph. There's a clear consensus for the minor change to the first paragraph, and a reasonably clear consensus to add some version of the proposed second paragraph, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus on which of the proposed phrasings of the second paragraph to use, and so I would like an uninvolved editor to make some decision on that point and close the RfC. Loki (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by JzG signed, Rosguill talk 19:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 12 August 2020) Formal close requested for RfC re-evaluating Quillette magazine, for which 37 editors responded and WP:RSOPINION was associated. This RfC sprung from a WP:RSN discussion created on 9 August 2020. Please see Perennial sources#Quillette where source is currently tagged as "Generally unreliable". Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
| Collapsed side discussion Crossroads -talk- 03:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 12 August 2020) Should be closed by an uninvolved experienced editor. Orientls (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by JzG signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1592 days ago on 18 August 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 309 § 112.ua? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 02:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think closure at that RSN discussion also relates to closure of this discussion at the spam blacklist noticeboard. Jlevi (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Doing..., and raising at WP:Discussions for discussion due to the issue's complexity. signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1585 days ago on 25 August 2020) the vote result has already been reached --Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, consensus is clear barring one belligerent editor who has already been blocked for their troubles. The page has already been updated to reflect the discussion outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 27 August 2020) This has been open for over a month and I'm requesting that someone close it. The administrator who closes this should be aware that some SPAs were created shortly after the RfC was open to !Vote "Support". --1990'sguy (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1582 days ago on 28 August 2020) Needs to be assessed regarding two questions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 18:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 27 August 2020) A small discussion, but hosted at VPR with notifications given to the relevant pages and unanimous support among !voters, so it should hopefully be actionable if someone is willing to give it a formal closing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Too little participation to make a change to a project-wide practice of such longstanding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1573 days ago on 6 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has been relisted three times already? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Third relists only a couple days ago. It'll pop-up for closure in due course with perhaps some clarity as to consensus with some more participation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - @Barkeep49:, per WP:RELIST,
- "relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure"
- "Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors"
- "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice", and
- "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient"
- This discussion has going on for over one month with many editors, and no justification has been provided for a third relist. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, those are the guidelines about relisting, yes. And still my comment stands. If you have an issue with the third relist I suggest you take it up with Spartaz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - The third relist is now over one week old, which IMHO, means that the discussion is ready for closure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Jax 0677, those are the guidelines about relisting, yes. And still my comment stands. If you have an issue with the third relist I suggest you take it up with Spartaz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1550 days ago on 29 September 2020) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Premeditated Chaos. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 15:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1737 days ago on 25 March 2020) As an involved editor, would like this merge discussion to be formally closed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Not done: I just carried out the merger and it was reverted by a sysop. I guess it's back in your hands now. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- With such a small discussion, which was unanimous at the time of being listed here, this really shouldn't have been listed here in the first place. At this point, the discussion can be considered ongoing, and this request can be safely archived. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1699 days ago on 2 May 2020) Could an editor or administrator versed with closing move discussions please close this one? It has been open for almost three months, and there have been no comments added to the discussion in over a month. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1638 days ago on 2 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, having read through the discussion in question, it's not clear what proposed changes are suggested by any participant in the discussion, and the article appears to have changed significantly since the dispute was first raised. The discussion is further disjointed, with 2 comments made 3 months ago, 3 made 1 month ago, and 1 made 11 days ago. signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1637 days ago on 4 July 2020) Would like there to be a formal end to this proposed move as there seems to be a clear consensus.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1615 days ago on 25 July 2020) The discussion has been open since July and has bled into several other sections on the talk page. Good luck. -- Calidum 16:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1589 days ago on 20 August 2020) A consensus appears to have been reached, but request that an uninvolved editor review it. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Undone; I misunderstood the editors' intentions. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1569 days ago on 9 September 2020) Requesting closure of the merge discussion please. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Hebsen. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1553 days ago on 25 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- No close needed so {{Not done}}. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1546 days ago on 2 October 2020) Should this discussion be closed as synonymous to Talk:Kenosha_unrest#Split_proposed? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment - The discussion is now over one week old. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1592 days ago on 18 August 2020) No consensus has yet been reached. 1 is the status quo (2+3 votes, depending on variation), the most voted options are 3 (11 votes) and 7 (9 votes), while 7 (2 times) and 1 (2+1 times) have been opposed. Really, the options are 3 and 7, with 1 being the status quo. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1570 days ago on 8 September 2020) Seven votes/contributions were offered in the first week of the RfC. Another two weeks have passed with no additional comments provided. A close would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging once more on this issue. -Darouet (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Czar, Barkeep49, and Rosguill: since you've been active here recently - sorry for the ping! -Darouet (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
- Darouet,I don't have time to look now but a couple general words. First per WP:RFCEND no formal close might be necessary. Second, if a formal close is necessary you'll see that there are a few RfCs older than yours. When considering what to close the age of the discussion is one consideration I use. So, and I know this is hard when I find myself in a disagreement, please be patient. Someone will get to you (if indeed it's actually necessary). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
{{done}}—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1573 days ago on 6 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, whose third relist was over one week ago? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Barkeep49 (talk) at 01:13 on 17 October 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1591 days ago on 19 August 2020) Could an experienced Wikipedian please assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- The newly-closed discussion about deindexing can now be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Deindexing talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1575 days ago on 4 September 2020) RFC has ended. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1582 days ago on 27 August 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- second the RfC. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Reply - @Xinbenlv:, what do you mean? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: It means, I support and endorse what you said. just like "+1", but more formal.xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Bump. Still waiting for a Closure, help is still needed. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, although I left open the bottom part of the section where there's discussion of the draft underway. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1580 days ago on 30 August 2020) Seems to have run its (long-winded) course. Consensus in it may actually be pretty clear despite the verbiage; it'll just be a bit of a tedious read. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
HuffPost RfC
(Initiated 1573 days ago on 5 September 2020) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#RFC:_HuffPost
This discussion was archived without closure. 192.76.8.89 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1563 days ago on 16 September 2020) Please would an uninvolved person please bring a formal end to this RFC. Thank you. Tyrroi (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Buidhe.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1598 days ago on 12 August 2020) This was an extended RfC discussion where neither of the two most obvious choices gained a clear consensus. There was fairly promising discussion of a compromise option as the RfC progressed, but discussion died down and has been inactive for nearly two months now. Since the initial discussion was so contentious, and since there was already a related RfC closed with no consensus several months ago, it seems like it would be for the best if an uninvolved editor closed this one. Thank you! --Drevolt (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1579 days ago on 31 August 2020) Closure is requested of this discussion. (It was an RfC.) Crossroads -talk- 16:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- For clarification, the RfC tag was only up for a week so can hardly be called that. The original discussion was malformed and happened on both talk pages without being listed elsewhere for broader participation. czar 17:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- That other discussion is mentioned and linked at this discussion, so that it is considered. There are plenty of comments at these discussions, many of them from during that RfC time, so there was wide participation, and I believe that the consensus is clear. I see no reason not to list this here and get it closed after how long altogether it has been. Crossroads -talk- 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- RfCs typically are listed for longer, hence my clarification on that point alone. czar 05:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- That other discussion is mentioned and linked at this discussion, so that it is considered. There are plenty of comments at these discussions, many of them from during that RfC time, so there was wide participation, and I believe that the consensus is clear. I see no reason not to list this here and get it closed after how long altogether it has been. Crossroads -talk- 20:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Its 15 to 7 in favor of merging on the talk page with little new discussion. Unaware of this Rfc, I had previously moved the relevant material into the new page. Juno (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1536 days ago on 13 October 2020) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 13:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1546 days ago on 3 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus of this close review? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1550 days ago on 29 September 2020) Some urgency in deciding this one way or another would seem in order, as the person (Theresa Greenfield) is running as candidate in an election. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} – The actionable portion of the discussion relating directly to Theresa Greenfield has already been closed by ST47. There's some additional discussion about related cases that I do not think would be appropriate to close at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 20:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1558 days ago on 21 September 2020) When appropriate, would an uninvolved editor please close this RFC?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 17:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1556 days ago on 23 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --OrderOftheNerds (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, small discussion with essentially unanimous consensus on the talk page, doesn't need formal closure. signed, Rosguill talk 16:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1555 days ago on 23 September 2020) One aspect is how should her gender identity be reported. A second question is to either amending or removing the ‘Name controversy’ section. Editing on the article has quieted after one user was indef blocked. Gleeanon 17:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1555 days ago on 24 September 2020) Seems to be a clear consensus to me, but closure was disputed. -- Beland (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1653 days ago on 18 June 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1671 days ago on 31 May 2020) Archived without formal closure, but as with anything involving infoboxes (or religion, much less both at once), it should probably get a clear assessment. My rede is that options 1, 2, and 4 passed, and the rest did not. But I !voted, so I'm not in a position to write a close, and it would be better if an admin did it anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1639 days ago on 2 July 2020) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1614 days ago on 26 July 2020) -sche (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1552 days ago on 27 September 2020) Please bring a end to this RFC. The discussion is about adding Mainland China on the PRC page. Thank you. -- 芄蘭 (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1541 days ago on 8 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: Please don't list discussions here requesting their close unless they have been opened for at least a month (30 days) and ideally (though not a hard requirement) commenting has slowed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{nd}} nothing a closer can do with that now-archived sub-section. A wider discussion is taking place on the main talk. Once that is over (per SandDoctor above) it may be worth requesting closure on that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1568 days ago on 10 September 2020) Just a few participants with an outcome that is unclear. The Banner talk 09:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}}: Discussion closed as no merger. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 10 July 2020) Archived without formal closure, but received a great deal of input, and should be closed, or the disputes about the subject will continue. It consists of two essentially competing proposals. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've just been through that whole discussion and I can't discern any consensus at all. I left it unclosed because a "no consensus" close won't do anything to stop the disputes you mention, and someone else might want to try.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- As with other RfCs that are basically a !voting exercise tacked onto the end of longer discussions, this one will probably need to be examined in the context of the threads that led up to it (I think the main one is also at NPOVN). From what I recall of this one, the policy arguments are very clear, versus some royalty wikiproject grousing that probably amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:CONLEVEL issues, though I might have missed something. I haven't looked at it in months (but participated heavily at the time, so I'm involved). The overall gist is whether it is OR to extrapolate from what nobility title someone would have had if the title had not been abolished, and calling that person by that title in articles on WP (when the person doesn't make any such claim, and RS don't do it either). The answer seems pretty clear, though there's a lot of verbiage to wade through. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a rough consensus that titles in pretense should not be generally used in article titles, infoboxes, etc. unless its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources demonstrates that a specific person is commonly named as such. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
(Initiated 1610 days ago on 31 July 2020) Last comment was on 8 August so I think we are ready for closure. There has been significant input from editors. Burrobert (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with no consensus to include the proposed material. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1534 days ago on 14 October 2020) Most people support a move of the article, and the least controversial and safest move for now is "2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war". However, I am not 100% sure if what is happening on that talk page can be considered as a consensus or not, so I would like an administrator to read the discussion and determine if it is appropriate to close the request. Super Ψ Dro 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Wug. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1612 days ago on 28 July 2020) I suspect that the consensus is to delete, but I'm not 100% sure. My only participation has been tagging an unsigned comment. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1576 days ago on 3 September 2020) I think this should be closed as Keep. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1561 days ago on 17 September 2020) All participants have voted to keep and purge the subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1561 days ago on 18 September 2020) Apparent consensus is to merge to the parent category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodea Oaktree (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1556 days ago on 22 September 2020) There is consensus to rename the category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1554 days ago on 24 September 2020) Consensus is most probably to merge. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1524 days ago on 25 October 2020)
I am requesting an early closure to this discussion given how it has devolved into borderline disruptive editing. There appears to be a clear consensus against a merger and an admin should judge for themselves of the conduct. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- It is due for closure tomorrow anyway. I don't see how any of the speedy criteria are met to do it any earlier. If conduct is an issue, WP:ANI. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Zeke, the Mad Horrorist * Pppery * it has begun... 00:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 27 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1523 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by T. Canens (talk) at 14:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1516 days ago on 1 November 2020) Could someone please review Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Now that it's November, when should we move?? Almost been a week, and one of the options has already gone past its deadline. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1590 days ago on 20 August 2020) Archived without formal closure, but received sufficient input to assess consensus. Anything involving infoboxes should get a closure, or disputes will continue forever. This one will be easy: it has a 10:7 (or 11:7, counting nom) headcount in favor of option B over option A, but option B is the only possible result anyway, since MOS:JOBTITLES is crystal clear on this, offsite sources mostly agree with our usage, and no WP:IAR case or other cause for an exception has been made, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, although I note that my reading of the discussion's outcome differs from the summary above. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1537 days ago on 11 October 2020) I feel as though the census is quite clear here, but since it's about the Proud Boys and has had a lot of very significant controversy, I feel as though a formal closure is the best course of action to avoid adding fuel to the fire. The !voting died out after a week, and there's really been no reasonable discussion (beyond what is just bickering over sources despite the clear common terms) since around then too. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 07:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1554 days ago on 24 September 2020) I believe the consensus is to merge into The Thirteen Colonies tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1554 days ago on 25 September 2020) Consensus to rename. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1535 days ago on 14 October 2020) Discussion has lasted nearly a month and opposition is unanimous. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1548 days ago on 30 September 2020) There is consensus to rename. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1549 days ago on 30 September 2020) It has been more than 30 days, and no one has closed this RfC. I hope someone here can take a look. Thank you, RGloucester — ☎ 17:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1522 days ago on 27 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1567 days ago on 12 September 2020) This has been going for 40+ days with plenty of inputs; more or less petered out but keeps sputtering back to life with individual comments, which probably could go on indefinitely. Formal closure & summary would be appreciated. There are strong opinions on both ends of the spectrum so likely to be contentious. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- concur this needs a close. Suggest a group of three admins - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- Well, it seems the !votes are still coming in and, as you may have heard lately, we really should count every vote. Maybe wait until !voting has definitely died down? FOARP (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion does not seem to exist. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Primefac: The thread concerned was archived normally by lowercase sigmabot III (added to archive 317, removed from RSN). It was then unarchived by Guest2625 (talk · contribs) (return to RSN, removal from archive 317). Then it was removed from RSN by Buidhe (talk · contribs), at 05:08, 9 November 2020 without being returned to the archive, reinstated by Guest2625 at 05:15, 9 November 2020 and removed again by Buidhe at 05:18, 9 November 2020. Both removals by Buidhe claim that the thread was "archived", but I can find no evidence of where they pasted the cut content to. So, it's in limbo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's now been restored to the main page again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion does not seem to exist. Primefac (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just posted a note to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Are_there_three_trusted_admins_who_can_close_a_contentious_dispute? asking for three brave admins - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Copying my comment from that noticeboard: Having no particular impression of the source one way or the other, and no involvement in the discussion, I'll volunteer for a panel. BD2412 T 23:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Per the response at ANI, I have made a solo close of the discussion. BD2412 T 01:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 10 July 2020) There is consensus to merge, subject to a couple of exceptions. This is the last remaining CFD of Category:Categories for discussion from July 2020. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1650 days ago on 20 June 2020) There's already been one attempt to close this, which was overturned following an AN discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
The conflict lasted since 14 may 2020. I reverted two more time. And then compromised for the image without text. Which was also reverted. I then stopped the edit war and still waiting for a consensus while the image and the controversial text is enforced in the page. Thanks for having a look at it. Iluvalar (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)- Iluvalar is topic banned from Covid-19 under general sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed after re-analysis with a clear preponderance to Option #3 among those arguments that were policy-compliant. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1607 days ago on 2 August 2020) Been archived for a while, a large number of contributors so it would be great if it got a proper close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Unarchived and closed with a clear consensus in favor of Option #1 but a rough consensus that additional considerations apply at some higher rate than "normal". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1543 days ago on 6 October 2020) Could an experienced editor analyse and close this discussion? ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Why? RfCs normally run for thirty days. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- Redrose64, I think the consensus is clear in that RfC about including the statement, and there is no issue in closing RfCs early, unless they're a bit more controversial that it takes time to reach any final point? I guess, I have not misread,
The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 15 September 2020); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion.
Anyways, it is fine if you want it to be open for a month or more. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)- The RfC is already 30 days old now, and I don't see any substantial participation in it since I posted the closure request here. Maybe someone can assess the discussion and close it now? Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @TheAafi:, please be patient. There are eight requests older than yours and there is WP:NODEADLINE. It will be looked at in time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC is already 30 days old now, and I don't see any substantial participation in it since I posted the closure request here. Maybe someone can assess the discussion and close it now? Thanks ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Redrose64, I think the consensus is clear in that RfC about including the statement, and there is no issue in closing RfCs early, unless they're a bit more controversial that it takes time to reach any final point? I guess, I have not misread,
- I'm reading the discussion and will be closing it shortly.VR talk 03:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Discussion closed.VR talk 03:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1548 days ago on 1 October 2020) Started over a month ago and nobody has contributed in over 9 days. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} looks like ProcrastinatingReader took care of this - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1533 days ago on 15 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor or administrator close this policy RfC, which has run its course? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1506 days ago on 12 November 2020) RFC on deprecation of a source. Looking like a WP:SNOW, but waited until 7 days were up. Could someone please do the honours? - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Snowball clause close per multiple request within the thread and the above. Clear consensus that Newsmax is at least "generally unreliable" and moderately-clear consensus that therefore Newsmax should be deprecated as a source. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1542 days ago on 6 October 2020) This CfD has been relisted, yet there has not been a single reply to it since 8 October 2020. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1573 days ago on 5 September 2020) No new comments for the last month, but plenty of clear expressions of preference. It's not one of these "triplet of admins please" RFCs, but some uninvolved editor needs to put the beast to bed now. I'm involved or I'd close it down myself. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a rough consensus to include "koala bear" in the lead with some form of indication that "bear" is biologically inexact. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1557 days ago on 21 September 2020) This needs a closure, with a note about if there is a consensus (and if there is, then what is the consensus). The bot has already removed the RfC template. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 02:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC expired over a week ago. No one interested to close? Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- More than two weeks now. Is there no one interested to close this? Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I remember recieving strong rebuke for posting "invalid RfC" and "malformed RfC" in hours after posting the RfC. But, after dozens of editors including many long standing admins taking part in it... no one is interested to close it, not even as no consensus. It's been more than three weeks. Interesting. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aditya: you can see that there are a number of even older RfCs that have yet to be closed. I know it's frustrating to have waited three weeks after the length of the time of an RfC but, unfortunately, that's just the way some issues go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't mind waiting. But waiting with a feeling that this might never bear any fruit is what frustrates me. The dispute was already going for two months before the RfC, and had been going on and off for years. As far as I can see it takes much less time to make a real human baby than to resolve a dispute on the Wikipedia 😂. Thanks for the kind response. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus on the inclusion of Afghanistan and Myanmar in the lead's definition and no consideration of the other issues raised. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't mind waiting. But waiting with a feeling that this might never bear any fruit is what frustrates me. The dispute was already going for two months before the RfC, and had been going on and off for years. As far as I can see it takes much less time to make a real human baby than to resolve a dispute on the Wikipedia 😂. Thanks for the kind response. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 19:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Aditya: you can see that there are a number of even older RfCs that have yet to be closed. I know it's frustrating to have waited three weeks after the length of the time of an RfC but, unfortunately, that's just the way some issues go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I remember recieving strong rebuke for posting "invalid RfC" and "malformed RfC" in hours after posting the RfC. But, after dozens of editors including many long standing admins taking part in it... no one is interested to close it, not even as no consensus. It's been more than three weeks. Interesting. Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- More than two weeks now. Is there no one interested to close this? Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC expired over a week ago. No one interested to close? Aditya(✉ • ⚒) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1565 days ago on 13 September 2020) There was an attempt to close this discussion, which was overturned at AN in favor of letting the discussion run longer. Discussion has since died down, so it's time for a close. signed, Rosguill talk 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Wugapodes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1923 days ago on 22 September 2019) Would an uninvolved editor please close the previously vigorous but now stale discussion regarding a merge of Greenscamming into Greenwashing. Klbrain (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Merge actioned by Klbrain. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1523 days ago on 25 October 2020) I need an uninvolved editor to assess and, if possible, close this. Current voting stands at 3 in favor of the move, 1 against, and 1 with objections. Neither the opposing nor objecting voices have properly addressed any of the rationales presented, and the former at one point undermined his own argument by recognizing that the the current page title could apply to many people. Avis11 (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by BD2412 T at 03:17 on 21 November 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 22:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1519 days ago on 30 October 2020) requesting closure on a move discussion. There seems to be a consensus, but I think it may need a double check to confirm this. Alex Tenshi (talk|contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1573 days ago on 6 September 2020) Less likely to form clear agreement. As author of article and initiator of RfC I am personally for moving on towards AfD discussion to seek clear community opinion, but may be experienced user might want to suggest any other method of dispute resolution, merge or move discussion or AfD discussion itself. Thanks.Bookku (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with a consensus to rename the article. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1535 days ago on 13 October 2020) This was a long-drawn-out RfC that had thorough discussions and quite a few contributors. It would be great if it got a proper closure by an uninvolved administrator or editor.Magnus Dominus (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1558 days ago on 21 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1527 days ago on 21 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1519 days ago on 29 October 2020) Requesting uninvolved, experienced editor to assess how to stylize references to the current U.S. president at this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1513 days ago on 4 November 2020) It seems like there is a consensus in that discussion. --Delasse (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1507 days ago on 10 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1504 days ago on 13 November 2020) this is a malformed GAR which was initiated by a user who made some broad sweeping comments without specifics and after a personal attack by them on the principal contributor, no longer wishes to participate. I would close it but I've commented. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1560 days ago on 18 September 2020) There is also related discussion at talk:Kyiv. —Michael Z. 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1555 days ago on 23 September 2020) This RfC had multiple outcomes to select from and many editors selected more than one option. Would like a more experienced editor to determine consensus. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 17:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1548 days ago on 1 October 2020) Would appreciate a quick hand closing this. Thanks. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1547 days ago on 2 October 2020) Requesting an experience editor or admin to close this please. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should be done by an experienced admin. The page and the RFC has backgrounds that need to be followed before closure. --Mhhossein talk 07:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1538 days ago on 10 October 2020) Consensus in this RfC will not be difficult for an uninvolved editor to assess, however formal closure is necessary due to refusal on the part of some editors to drop the stick. (t · c) buidhe 21:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1524 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this please? Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1523 days ago on 25 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1514 days ago on 3 November 2020) An uninvolved editor is appreciated; thanks. George Ho (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{DONE}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetsford (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1502 days ago on 15 November 2020) Consensus should be easy to evaluate, but a formal close was requested. (t · c) buidhe 13:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1551 days ago on 28 September 2020) Is there consensus against the proposal, or should it be relisted per the last comment? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 28 October 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor please review Talk:French Revolution##RFC:_Second_paragraph_of_lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1599 days ago on 10 August 2020)
I need another opinion on this discussion, a few editors believe that this article is written like a personal essay despite having over 210 sources and multiple references. It is related to the current dispute of North Macedonia and Bulgaria over the identity of this hero (read more here https://www.euractiv.com/section/enlargement/news/revolutionary-heros-identity-stands-in-the-way-of-skopjes-eu-path/), I do not think some editors that support the addition of these tags are doing so in good faith but instead they are Tag bombinb (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag bombing) --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @StoyanStoyanov80: This is a page for requesting closure, not for
anoother opinion
. Please, see WP:thirdopinion to request another opinion. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)- {{Not done}} Marking this "Done" in the initiated template simply to remove it from this list. As pointed out immediately above, this is not a close request but a request for a third opinion, which is inappropriate for this page. The discussion referenced has no definite proposal or point upon which a consensus could be determined but is a regular talk page discussion. Per WP:CLOSE, this type of discussion does not need a closing statement and the only likely close would be "no consensus," which hardly helps. A properly-formatted RfC may bring future clarity to the issues raised. See WP:RFCBRIEF and Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment for assistance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1494 days ago on 24 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1575 days ago on 3 September 2020) Clear consensus against a merge. Was closed, but user simply removed vote. I edited on 67.85.37.186 and therefore can't close it myself. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Close}} as not merged. Chlod (say hi!) 21:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1540 days ago on 8 October 2020) Can someone neutral (doesn't need to be an admin) close this? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC) {{done}} AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 26 August 2020) The RFC header was removed by Legobot as expired a few days ago, but could an uninvolved experienced editor review it to state whether there was a consensus? Everybody who voted at the RFC voted to include the content, but only 4 users officially voted. However there were significant edits from 3 other users related to the RFC before it started and after it ended. Serial Number 54129 has persistently edited the content out but has been inactive since a little bit after the RFC started, Drmies has edited the content out at one point but has not done so since despite being well aware that the content was restored ever since multiple secondary sources were added to the article per his advice on my talk page and has privately thanked me for doing so, and Exukvera has edited the content back in at least twice but has not contributed to any discussion despite being pinged. Thanks to whoever reviews this. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Unnamed anon: this is one of the way that RfCs end. In this case I'm not sure you need a formal close so much as
When an RfC is used to resolve a dispute, the resolution is determined the same way as for any other discussion: the participants in the discussion determine what they have agreed on and try to implement their agreement.
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)- @Barkeep49:, so, because all participants in the RFC have agreed, and one opposing user from the dispute has kept the article the way it was when the content was restored, does that mean the RFC succeeded? A formal close on the article talk page would still help, as I am worried about the other opposing user reverting again upon their return, as they have reverted despite an existing consensus in the past. I see you are an administrator with 15 years' experience; am I allowed to ask you to give this RFC a formal close? Thank you in advance. Unnamed anon (talk)|
- @Unnamed anon:, not only administrators can close RfCs. I think I closed more RfCs before I was an administrator than since. I suggest you add a comment saying what it is you plan to do. Leave it a week or so. If no one objects implement it. If another editor comes back later and raises a fuss you can point to that discussion and this as why you did it. It is an alternative to waiting here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: What I plan to implement was already present by the time the RFC started, has been like that since, and still is; the reason it started was because it was being persistently reverted every month, and what I hope to gain from somebody closing the RFC is for confirmation if it can stay that way as evidence in case the other editor thinks about editing it out again or as evidence against me to revert it back to their version. The other editor has reverted against a consensus in January on this page before, but said January consensus only involved two other users besides me, and had no RFC template. This is why I started an RFC, despite the content I had proposed already being present by the time it started; to gain confirmation on whether or not it should be kept as is. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- Unnamed anon, I understand. I am more suggesting "I plan in a week to implement the consensus above" can be helpful in reducing conflict later one. Either no one objects and you can point to this in the future or someone does object and you know where things stand (perhaps indeed needing to wait for a formal close). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Is this what you want me to comment at the top? Sorry, I'm a bit confused about what you're saying, as the content was already there by the time the RFC started, and the reason for it was to keep it that way due to persistent reversions that only stopped due to the other editor going inactive. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to say there is no need for a formal close because multiple editors have agreed to its implementation, but that's kind of the reason I'm asking for a formal close; to make it extremely obvious to the opposing party if there is a consensus, so as to prevent another series of monthly disruption. I do not want to experience monthly disruption on this page again, regardless of what the outcome of the RFC is, and a formal close with any outcome, even those that I do not hope for, will let me know what happens next. If there is a consensus, then we know that whoever is against the consensus will be forced to discuss their edits instead of persistently reverting, and if there is no consensus, then I know to start another RFC to get more input if only if the disruption happens again. I am aware that
Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.
, and that the discussion has had all of its votes in favor of keeping the content, as well as one opposing user not reverting since the restoration of the content and privately thanking me for trying to reach a compromise, but due to the the other opposing and currently inactive user's seeming assumptions that I operate under bad faith, I feel like the closure will only be valid if an uninvolved editor reviews it, no matter how clear you or I believe the outcome is. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Is this what you want me to comment at the top? Sorry, I'm a bit confused about what you're saying, as the content was already there by the time the RFC started, and the reason for it was to keep it that way due to persistent reversions that only stopped due to the other editor going inactive. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to say there is no need for a formal close because multiple editors have agreed to its implementation, but that's kind of the reason I'm asking for a formal close; to make it extremely obvious to the opposing party if there is a consensus, so as to prevent another series of monthly disruption. I do not want to experience monthly disruption on this page again, regardless of what the outcome of the RFC is, and a formal close with any outcome, even those that I do not hope for, will let me know what happens next. If there is a consensus, then we know that whoever is against the consensus will be forced to discuss their edits instead of persistently reverting, and if there is no consensus, then I know to start another RFC to get more input if only if the disruption happens again. I am aware that
- Unnamed anon, I understand. I am more suggesting "I plan in a week to implement the consensus above" can be helpful in reducing conflict later one. Either no one objects and you can point to this in the future or someone does object and you know where things stand (perhaps indeed needing to wait for a formal close). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49:, so, because all participants in the RFC have agreed, and one opposing user from the dispute has kept the article the way it was when the content was restored, does that mean the RFC succeeded? A formal close on the article talk page would still help, as I am worried about the other opposing user reverting again upon their return, as they have reverted despite an existing consensus in the past. I see you are an administrator with 15 years' experience; am I allowed to ask you to give this RFC a formal close? Thank you in advance. Unnamed anon (talk)|
- {{done}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Project Veritas#RfC regarding wording and attribution of "deceptively edited" statement in lede
(Initiated 1512 days ago on 6 November 2020) A formal close would be helpful here, since this is a perennial discussion on the article talk page. The discussion has been open for more than 30 days, and there have been no new votes since November 17. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1502 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} Discussion was
Relisted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 28 October 2020) A discussion about whether or not the article should be merged went down. However, there are multiple opinions.
- Keep the article
- Merge the article
- Keep the article, but demote from GA status
A very rough consensus seems to be keep. I would like an administrator to close this mess that's been inactive for quite a while. Le Panini Talk 15:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1650 days ago on 21 June 2020) This has gone on way long enough, and lack of a formal resolution is simply leading to WP:TALKFORKs of this debate at article talk pages. I think the consensus is pretty easy to determine (especially since a policy is involved), but !votes will need to be read carefully, as some people are responding with clear do this not that posts, while others are more vaguely saying support or oppose (there are at least three, not two, options, so exactly what they mean will be inside the rest of their comment). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1583 days ago on 26 August 2020) Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please and bring the article live if this is the consensus, as it appears to be, Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1548 days ago on 1 October 2020) It's been open two months and very discussion has taken place of late. -- Calidum 18:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} by No such user (talk) at 14:13 on 9 December 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1493 days ago on 24 November 2020) This discussion over changing a highly controversial title for an article has gone on for over a week and seems to be petering out with no consensus. What's more, even most of those supporting the move aren't thrilled with the proposal, they just think it's better than the current one, and some people who hate the article's current name voted against changing it because they think this particular proposal is worse. After talking it over some with editors who voted in favor of keeping it, we've concluded that this discussion should be closed so we can consider a new potential proposed title.--RM (Be my friend) 23:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1513 days ago on 5 November 2020) A formal close would be helpful here. The discussion has been open for more than 30 days, and there have been no new votes since November 10. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1501 days ago on 16 November 2020) Looking for an admin or experienced editor to close this RFC and determine what the consensus is if there is any. This is my first time using this page, apologies if this request has any formatting issues. Rab V (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1541 days ago on 7 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Doing... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- And {{done}}. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1530 days ago on 19 October 2020) (Initiated 1572 days ago on 7 September 2020) Seems meet deadlock cause 1 editor being tiresome and tendentious so the issue is a contentious one although the vote result has already been reached --Michaelelijahtanuwijaya (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- This had no RfC tag until today, and consequently had no comments other than three by people already active in the dispute that led up to it. I have reset the timer on this one. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, no closure needed, the primary dissent from the status quo was an editor who has since been indef blocked for their efforts. A compromise proposal made by an uninvolved editor did not gain any traction. As the discussion was already archived, I see no reason to revive it. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1502 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion, which has now been relisted thrice? WP:RELIST states that "debates should not be relisted more than twice". This section should be left here until such time that the AFD is closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Missvain signed, Rosguill talk 20:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1594 days ago on 15 August 2020) Started as an RfC, but RfC tag removed after complaints of non-neutral heading and presentation. Considerable discussion nevertheless ensued, and a consensus can likely be assessed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by L235 signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1557 days ago on 21 September 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1543 days ago on 6 October 2020) Requesting an uninvolved administrator assessment of consensus here. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 02:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
- This has been sitting pinned at the top of the Trump talk page for more than a month now. I endorse the request for a close and urge that it be prioritized. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1546 days ago on 3 October 2020) Requesting that an uninvolved editor close this RfC. It has been stale for over a month, but it seems to still be interpreted as unresolved in a follow-up discussion. — MarkH21talk 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by valereee signed, Rosguill talk 20:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1540 days ago on 8 October 2020) This evidently ended in a consensus. But the dispute has been going for years, espcially pitched in the last three months. This discussion came at the heel of two other back to back discussions (the first one started 1 August) and at least two dozen reverts by almost dozen editors, all part of the same dispute. It will be really helpful if we had a formal closure with a clear indication of the outcome. That would help to keep peace in future disputes, which, looking at the article and talk histoy, potentially can start/re-start any day. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1470 days ago on 17 December 2020) Requesting closure per WP:SNOW. The only !votes of support are the proposer, and an account that has been trying to push WP:OR/conspiracy-theory stuff about "the diamond". IHateAccounts (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{not done}} RfC has been open for three days with 17 !votes, of which 10 are no, 4 are yes, and 3 are "yes but not as written." Of course we don't decide RfCs based on !votes, but on argument. However, a cursory headcount is reasonable to determine if the extraordinary standards of a SNOW close are likely to be met. And they are not. In all probability this will ultimately close as "no", but the likelihood it will end up unanimous, near-unanimous, or could be closed early without any reasonable objections being raised (our SNOW tests), is virtually impossible. Chetsford (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1467 days ago on 20 December 2020) Resolved, consensus was to remove I-77 entirely per the 10 jct rule, which it was. Just need a formal closure along the lines of, I-77 was removed entirely
. --Hurricane Tracker 495 00:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @HurricaneTracker495: {{not done}} How can this be resolved after less than one hour of discussion involving only four people? If it really is resolved to everybody's satisfaction, you don't need to come here to ask for closure, see the yellow pool ball at the top. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1545 days ago on 3 October 2020) Please come and close this move review. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1526 days ago on 22 October 2020) Can someone please evaluate the consensus at Talk:TikTok#RfC on "Chinese", as the discussion is almost two months old and has mostly petered out? The numbers are close, but there are questions of precedent and strength of argument too. Thank you, Bkenny44 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, RfC was relisted 26 days ago and is still seeing active participation. signed, Rosguill talk 19:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1485 days ago on 3 December 2020) Interest in this one appears to have died down, so I'm requesting formal closure on a somewhat controversial AP2 topic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1529 days ago on 19 October 2020)
I have to say it this way to properly explain: I am listing this here because of what is going on in the last subsection of this section. There was an RfC at the Village Pump about this matter which rejected the proposal developed over the preceding subsections. In the last subsection (which was never itself an RfC despite the heading; it merely linked to the RfC) there seems to be an attempt by the main proponent to re-litigate/question the RfC contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:IDHT. Crossroads -talk- 05:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, I don't think there's any danger of LOCALCONSENSUS decisions being used to supersede the broader discussion. If the main proponent picks up the stick again in the event that their (unrelated, I believe) unblock request is accepted, I'll consider asking them to disengage. signed, Rosguill talk 19:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1524 days ago on 24 October 2020) Please come and close this move review. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 27 October 2020) It's been over a month since this was opened and there's been a lot of responses. I think the outcome is reasonably clear, but given the acrimony it would be best to have a formal closure. --Aquillion (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 2047 days ago on 20 May 2019) A stale split discussion. Matthew hk (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1631 days ago on 9 July 2020) Consensus seems fairly clear, but lack of a formal closure on this one has resulted in the issue being (very unclearly) rehashed at "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titles, honorifics and appeal to popularity", so this would clearly benefit from a written close. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1524 days ago on 24 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess consensus at this design-related discussion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, outcome is fairly self evident with support outnumbering oppose 2-to-1, and essentially all arguments being rooted in personal opinions about whether or not a redesign is worth the effort. With that in mind, I'd say that editors interested in taking on this work have a mandate to do so, but don't see a point in de-archiving and formally closing the discussion. Courtesy ping to Sdkb signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1542 days ago on 6 October 2020) Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please (some editors in these discussions have a history of challenging the close, so a bit of 'thick skin' may be required). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
- Discussion is still ongoing, so I would urge until discussion has finished to close the RfC. Remember, wikipedia has no WP:Deadline.VR talk 05:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, discussion has been ongoing for several weeks since this was listed here. If editors feel that a third party is needed to keep the discussion from spiraling in circles, feel free to relist, but without a request for that sort of intervention I don't think it would be appropriate to intervene at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1510 days ago on 7 November 2020) Looking for an admin to evaluate consensus and close this discussion. There has been some sock activity/possible canvassing so probably best for a fairly experienced admin to do this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1509 days ago on 8 November 2020) It's been over a month since this was opened and there was a lot of engagement, so I would kindly ask an administrator to formally close the RfC and put an end to the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1512 days ago on 6 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, at a glance seems like no consensus. Given the time-sensitive nature of many of the arguments, I doubt it's worth the effort to attempt to tease out anything more than that. signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1502 days ago on 15 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- This appears to have been closed and archived, although the close is unsigned. In any case, it is now moot. BD2412 T 18:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1712 days ago on 20 April 2020) [or (Initiated 1735 days ago on 27 March 2020) if you can count prior nomination(s)] – For six (or seven) months the cover arts of NSYNC songs have been nominated, deleted but then undeleted per deletion review, re-nominated, and then relisted a few or several more times. As of date, there have been no newer votes since early October, even with the relisting two weeks ago. I wonder how long we must await a newer vote. If one admin isn't enough, then how about two admins teaming up together to write the consensus rationale? George Ho (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC); edited, 01:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by an admin. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1509 days ago on 8 November 2020) I originally posted on the Teahouse, but somebody there told me this is the official place to create such requests. We have had an extensive discussion.
As I pointed out many times there, I am trying to restore articles to previous guidelines and consensus. As you know, an RFC is best closed by an uninvolved editor. We just need someone to have a quick sift through the archives to find this previously agreed guidelines / consensus and then this can be formally closed. I took the liberty to find the relevant archives and I will paste them below here to read:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_10#Changing_'London'_to_'Greater_London' Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Europe_and_North_Asia Wikipedia:WikiProject_London/Naming_conventions Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_8 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London/Archive_4
I would really appreciate it if someone could do this. Thank you :) Justgravy (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Thryduulf signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1499 days ago on 19 November 2020) This has been relisted twice and is almost on its seventh day with the second relist. It's probably getting close to that time... jp×g 22:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 21:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1501 days ago on 16 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? ― Ætoms [talk] 23:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by buidhe signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1526 days ago on 22 October 2020) Could an experienced editor please assess the consensus in this discussion? The sentiment isn't overly divided, but the way it played out made it fairly messy, and since it concerns the lead of a high-traffic page and was started by a paid editor I think it should get a formal close. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1517 days ago on 31 October 2020) Could an uninvolved editor close this RfC? No votes since November 16. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1492 days ago on 26 November 2020) We meed an official closure of this expired RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1495 days ago on 23 November 2020) Could an editor please review consensus at this discussion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1578 days ago on 31 August 2020) long overdue, RfC on inclusion standards for a specific list, and edit requests keep popping up which seem to fail the outcome of the RfC. Better to formalize the outcome and maybe clarify the wording in the article according to outcome of RfC. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Armbrust signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1578 days ago on 1 September 2020) We need an administrator to close this expired RFC. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 10:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1477 days ago on 11 December 2020) I'd like an administrator or an experienced editor to review this discussion and assess the consensus about the use of primary sources in addition to secondary sources. Thank you in advance. KyleJoantalk 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1542 days ago on 6 October 2020) Requesting an experienced editor or admin to close this please (some editors in these discussions have a history of challenging the close, so a bit of 'thick skin' may be required). Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with no consensus to remove the disputed text. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1480 days ago on 8 December 2020) RfC about the use of plural/singular verbs for "Washington Football Team"; discussion approaching 30 days with last unique contributor a week ago. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 2808 days ago on 20 April 2017) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin New Town#Merger proposal. Matthew hk (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Klbrain --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1877 days ago on 7 November 2019) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge proposal for some Dutch newspapers at Talk:NRC Handelsblad#Proposed merge with Algemeen Handelsblad and Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant. Klbrain (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Klbrain --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1759 days ago on 4 March 2020) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the merge/rewrite proposal at Talk:Sha Tin#Parallel article - Sha Tin - Sha Tin New Town - Sha Tin District. Matthew hk (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Klbrain --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1450 days ago on 7 January 2021) I am the editor who opened this RfC, due to feedback from multiple editors,I was told I should make a new more clearer RfC. I agreed.Bigbaby23 (talk)
(Initiated 1499 days ago on 18 November 2020) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#The Canary? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1508 days ago on 9 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please close this discussion? It seems the result is pretty clear, and it has been going on for two months already. Also this tag should be removed from lede.--Watchlonly (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1501 days ago on 16 November 2020) A controversial topic merger that I think needs a closure. The last edit from a registered user was from 19 December 2020, It seems that the result is pretty clear as only one editor presented an argument about disagreeing with the merge, and it has been inactive for quite a while now except from a comment by an unregistered IP recently. PyroFloe (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1478 days ago on 9 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax Media to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1469 days ago on 19 December 2020) Please close this discussion. It has been going on for quite a while, and the consensus is very unclear. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 12:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- It has already been closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Done by Lee Vilenski. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1763 days ago on 29 February 2020) It would be helpful if an experienced editor could assess the merge proposal for Fatwa of Sheikh Abubakr Ahmad on ISIS into Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar. Klbrain (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1497 days ago on 21 November 2020) Would appreciate if someone uninvolved could assess and close this. Avilich (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1472 days ago on 15 December 2020) Not a difficult one, but probably needs a formal close for other reasons. —valereee (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1495 days ago on 22 November 2020) I believe this discussion has run its course and there is rough consensus. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Mz7 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1545 days ago on 3 October 2020) This discussion has essentially died out. There appears to be some level of consensus for merging Hennessey Fire into LNU Lightning Complex fires, in keeping with the standard practice on the Wildfires WikiProject. See the talk page discussion for more details. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by buidhe signed, Rosguill talk 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1498 days ago on 19 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Amakuru signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1487 days ago on 30 November 2020) Hi, requesting an experienced editor/moderator to review this very contentious and accusational discussion. Will Tyson for real (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to mostly be a discussion between 2 people. Not much a closer can do here, suggest WP:DR. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, discussion is ongoing, and as ProcrastinatingReader notes this is more of a case for dispute resolution between a small number of editors rather than a discussion that needs evaluation for closing. signed, Rosguill talk 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1475 days ago on 13 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of non-notable private (subsidiary) company . Matthew hk (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1641 days ago on 29 June 2020) This merger discussion has been going on for quite a while, but was never closed. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 13:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1488 days ago on 30 November 2020) A contested topic which needs a formal close, but the close looks easy. The last non-bot edit was 19 December 2020. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Close}} by buidhe. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1449 days ago on 7 January 2021) Please close this AfD discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Ymblanter. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1495 days ago on 23 November 2020) Fairly clear consensus, but there has been some off-wiki attention on this descriptor (including from Southern herself, as well as in publications including Breitbart), and so a formal close would probably be valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare, would you be happy for me to perform a non-admin closure? Consensus seems pretty clear to me. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Sdrqaz: Sure, non-admin close is just fine with me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1476 days ago on 12 December 2020) Opened to determine status of source, because a previous discussion had not been an "official" RFC and thus could not officially deprecate. It has not run a full 30 days but I am ok with someone looking at it for closure. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1487 days ago on 30 November 2020) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reviewing... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1442 days ago on 14 January 2021) Near-unanimous WP:SNOW right from the start (and rehash of many previous discussions, especially at WT:MOSWTW). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1708 days ago on 24 April 2020) Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 October 5#File:The Terror of War.jpg There has been inconclusive discussion of the copyright status of this image at least since April 2020, current FFD on 5 October 2020 Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- This FFD was not opened on 5 October 2020 but on 24 April 2020, it has been relisted twice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Explicit * Pppery * it has begun... 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1635 days ago on 6 July 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}, discussion appears to be ongoing, albeit at a very slow pace. Moreover, with all participants other than the editor initiating the discussion currently opposed to any change and no sign of animosity or bludgeoning, I don't think this would need a formal closure even if the discussion had reached its conclusion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - This discussion is now over 6 months old, and would definitely benefit from closure at some point. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1514 days ago on 3 November 2020) requesting a closure on a discussion which affects all browser tabs of English Wikipedia. —andrybak (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1473 days ago on 14 December 2020) requesting a closure on the RM. Matthew hk (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1467 days ago on 20 December 2020) Consensus seems clear that the source can't be considered reliable, but a formal closure would be helpful in this case as to whether that means we also have consensus that it's therefore not reliable for anything other than its own opinions, attributed. I know that seems like splitting hairs, sorry. —valereee (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1457 days ago on 30 December 2020) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 6936 days ago on 31 December 2005) Need a not involved editors to close all the thread of the talk page that reopen and vote stacking by ips. Matthew hk (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Why are you asking for closure of a discussion that took place fifteen years ago? Let it lie, already. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: Well, i just need some resolution to that talk page. An admin has protected that page after i post this. See also, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK. Matthew hk (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1458 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{nd}} nothing for a closer to do here. Please stop listing so many discussions which have minimal participation and/or obviously nothing for a closer to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - I disagree. I tried to split Orbs (band) from Ashley Ellyllon, however, Orbs was once again redirected to Ashley Ellyllon. The album information was not added to Orbs until after the AFD was closed. The DRV stated that "there's not really a clear consensus here about the possibility of creating a new article if additional sources are found". I believe that an independent closure can determine whether the version of Orbs that I created today should be put to a second AFD. Additionally, per WP:G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing to independently close there. There’s a super vote to be done, but no closing. No editor is even explicitly in support of your proposal. Haven’t really reviewed the discussions but generally I’d suggest DRV at a later date or possibly AfC, or recreate the article if you have substantially better sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, just skipped to desktop mode to read the DRV. It gives good instruction:
the general principles that articles that have the same problems discussed in the AfD will get deleted/reverted, and those that overcome them won't be subject to the outcome of the AfD, should be expected to apply
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1440 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Relisted to allow for more discussion. Iffy★Chat -- 21:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1455 days ago on 1 January 2021) Should be a straightforward close, but needs doing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1434 days ago on 23 January 2021) Consensus is overwhelming. Some users objected to starting the RfC in the first place, as consensus was also very clear from a previous discussion initiated on 21:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC). The discussion has become somewhat off-topic. DrIdiot (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1472 days ago on 16 December 2020) This discussion plans out what text we should use on January 20, so it must be closed before then. We're about a week out, and discussion has tapered off and there's already been plenty said, so I think it'd be beneficial to close it soon. This would allow time to process any objections and make it easier to shift our attention to planning changes beyond the first paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 13:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} closed and archived in favour of voicing opinions at this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1677 days ago on 24 May 2020) Vigorous discussion, closing would be good for future reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 297#Scriptural texts (WP:RSPSCRIPTURE). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Having been archived without being closed, it would seem that further discussion is forestalled, and we are stuck with an absence of clear consensus on the issue at bar. The best I can gather from this is that there is general agreement that most propositions that could be sourced to scripture can also be sourced to a WP:RS-worthy examination of scripture, and that it is perhaps better practice to look for such a secondary source. BD2412 T 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} restored to discussion board and closed as no consensus achieved to modify' WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1486 days ago on 1 December 2020) Difficult close with high attendance and high importance to policy. No substantial activity in the last week so already overdue a close. — Bilorv (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- And note that it's a two-part RfC; there's a second set of question-and-answers material below the original. However, I don't think it will be a difficult close at all, because most of the available options resolve to variants of the same thing (editorial discretion to include both names as contextually appropriate, in a form that seems to make sense there). It's important to keep in mind also that this is a follow-up RfC to other recent ones (including at the same page, e.g. here), and an earlier one that was probably the longest RfC in WP:VPPOL's history (here, followup here), so it should be interpreted in light of previous discussion, not just who happened to show up over the last month. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Beland (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1433 days ago on 23 January 2021) The RfC was archived without being closed. Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1588 days ago on 21 August 2020) As an uninvolved party, I was asked to close this discussion. Abstaining from voting, I posed one question that I felt the discussion was lacking, and if no significant reason for keeping the discussion open is given after 7 days, I would consider the discussion closed. I understand that as an uninvolved editor, I can do this; I have closed a discussion only once before.
However, I'm not sure what to do about the related discussion directly above it, Talk:International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Use of the English name (and acronym) for this organisation. It's quite a long section, with some contention, and I'd feel more comfortable if an admin would kindly look things over and decide how to deal with this. Thank you very kindly for your assistance with this matter. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Usually, I'd consider that this is a discussion that does not actually require a close but since one was requested, I've closed it with a clear consensus that "IBWM" should not be used. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1587 days ago on 22 August 2020) I am involved in the discussion, but closure is easy-peasy. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with clear consensus not to merge. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1562 days ago on 16 September 2020) Need a decision at this reassessment. Completing the close can be a little bit complicated so I can do that part if needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed with a consensus to delist. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1427 days ago on 30 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note that RM discussions are already automatically advertised for closure at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Elapsed_listings. Unless it's taking a particularly long time, and this one has just passed the 7 days so it isn't, it's not really helpful to add it here as well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Still, {{done}}. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1440 days ago on 17 January 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1468 days ago on 19 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to close the merge discussion of a listed company that have high overlap with its parent company. Matthew hk (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} @Matthew hk:, you are free to implement. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1458 days ago on 30 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. {{Done}}.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1457 days ago on 30 December 2020) Discussion has died down, but consensus is unclear. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- There isn't one. {{Done}}.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1521 days ago on 28 October 2020) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 18:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:Ceyockey (talk to me) at 00:57 on 11 February 2021 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 11:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- comment I went through about half of the 1500 transclusions yesterday using autowikibrowser and I'll try to make it through all in the next couple of days. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1464 days ago on 24 December 2020) Could an uninvolved editor please review and close the RfC? Thanks, Some1 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1436 days ago on 21 January 2021) I started this RfC, and now would like an uninvolved editor to help me close it. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1548 days ago on 30 September 2020) Discussion on merging 4 pages. After several months of debate and many editors involved, consensus has been reached about merging 2 of the 4 pages, and not merging the other 2. I would appreciate if the debate is closed. Thank you.ExoEditor 18:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- To clarify; there was only unanimous consensus to merge two of the articles, which have already been merged. There seems to be consensus to merge the other two as well, as User:Lithopsian has stated, but an uninvolved editor is needed to determine consensus. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus to merge the articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1421 days ago on 4 February 2021) Discussion went stale for almost a week. Don't know when newer comments will arrive. George Ho (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. New comment made recently. Withdrawing request for now. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1418 days ago on 7 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} – Relisted by SITH (talk) at 17:06 on 14 February 2021 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 02:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1499 days ago on 18 November 2020) Could an experienced editor please review and close? BC1278 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1517 days ago on 31 October 2020) This one has been lingering for awhile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1503 days ago on 15 November 2020) – ask that this be closed as soon as possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1459 days ago on 29 December 2020) Could an uninvolved experienced editor close this? Thanks. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1458 days ago on 30 December 2020) The last post in this merge discussion was a while back, so could someone take a look at it with a view to closing? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1456 days ago on 1 January 2021) Discussion on placing the maintenance tag for large articles on the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1409 days ago on 16 February 2021)
- The following GARs have been open since October with little to no activity, and I think they can be safely closed as "delist":
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Both {{done}} —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1440 days ago on 16 January 2021) Last !vote was 9 days ago. One side has a preponderance of !votes but consensus has been disputed so I've been advised to seek an uninvolved closer here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I closed it. I am not uninvolved but I did close against my own position because of the clear consensus. I don't think anyone is really disputing the consensus at this point. Loki (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted Loki's close, as s/he was the initiator of the RfC. Really we need a totally uninvolved editor, and perhaps wait the customary 30 days. No deadline and whatnot… — JFG talk 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1415 days ago on 10 February 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close this discussion.--Sakiv (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} This is not an RfC, and requires more context. I'll post to the talk page, monitor the discussion, and am willing to close if we get to such a point. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1419 days ago on 7 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1432 days ago on 24 January 2021) Requesting an approval of a consensus from third party or closing for a completed RfC. Oliszydlowski (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Oliszydlowski: why is it completed? Last comment was 4 days ago and the customary 30 day period hasn't elapsed yet (which I noticed after reviewing the RfC). I'd prefer to leave it open for the normal 30 day period, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Very well. Oliszydlowski (talk) 13:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1450 days ago on 6 January 2021) This discussion has been open for almost seven weeks, with no discussion in over five weeks. I believe there is consensus to delete despite having registered a "weak retarget" vote myself. Once in a blue moon, I'll do an INVOLVED close that goes against my own position, in the spirit of IAR, but thought it would be better to request closure here. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits at 20:15 on 23 February 2021 (UTC) P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just noting that I didn't see this listing and am happy for my closure to be overturned to delete if consensus is deemed to be for that. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 03:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1522 days ago on 26 October 2020) Merge proposal that has been open for almost 4 months now. Chlod (say hi!) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Consensus not to merge. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1463 days ago on 24 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor to determine the consensus of this thread, which apparently flooded by ip due to suspected off-site canvassing. Matthew hk (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: First of all the article was turned into a redirect with no discussion, so the default position or most recent stable version would be the article itself rather than the redirect. Secondly Matthew hk struck out many remarks without submitting any evidence that there was off-site canvassing, nor was the SPIs he submitted conclusive ones. The talk page was also locked without any request formally submitted, btw. Please note. Thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- For admin and other closer. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK. Matthew hk (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} No consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1483 days ago on 4 December 2020) This would better be closed by an admin familiar with IRANPOL. The discussion has received feedback from multiple experienced admins/editors. Specially, there's a determining suggestion of 'source restriction' which needs to be considered as a part of the discussion. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 03:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is about a RfC, which received consensus in November 29, but Mhhossein keeps re-opening the conversation at AN even though it has been closed several times for lack of participation (and adding a code to it so that it won't be closed until 2030!)
- About source restriction, an editor suggested this was something that goes beyond this RFC:
"I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice)."
- Another editor opened a discussion on this at the article's talk page, with very little comments from everyone (including Mhhossein). Mhhossein does not seem to want to accept the consensus of this RfC even though almost all the participants in the RFC agreed the best thing to do was to significantly reduce the text of a section in the article. Also most editors and admins at AN endorsed the close. Idealigic (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Idealigic: Why are you bludgeoning the process again? Why are you saying these things here? --Mhhossein talk 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: I am not bludgeoning, I'm explaining that your comment about 'source restriction' was a suggestion by an editor who said this could be implemented by an admin to the entire People's Mujahedin of Iran article or IRANPOL areas, and not to one single sentence in a RFC (which would be a very biased way of editing the article, something also others said at AN). You forgot to explain that part. Idealigic (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's pure bludgeoning (probably you'll need to be taken to ANI for continued behavior of bludgeoning). By the way, Levivich showed how the YOU were failing to realize what 'source restriction' is. --Mhhossein talk 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: I am not bludgeoning, I'm explaining that your comment about 'source restriction' was a suggestion by an editor who said this could be implemented by an admin to the entire People's Mujahedin of Iran article or IRANPOL areas, and not to one single sentence in a RFC (which would be a very biased way of editing the article, something also others said at AN). You forgot to explain that part. Idealigic (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Idealigic: Why are you bludgeoning the process again? Why are you saying these things here? --Mhhossein talk 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by El C * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1480 days ago on 8 December 2020) Related to the one above, difficult close with high attendance and not much activity for the last week. — Bilorv (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is the 2nd half the RfC above; there's just one RfC tag. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- Given that I just closed the other RFC on deadnaming, I got very familar with the issues and had to come up with a method to deal with the giant yarn ball of opinions. I can probably do the same for this RFC; I will just need a day or two to recharge my personal and laptop batteries. -- Beland (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Beland * Pppery * it has begun... 04:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1463 days ago on 24 December 2020) (larger thread ongoing since 1 December 2020, reopened after December 2019 – February 2020 discussion, itself continuation from February–May 2016. This RfC (which was broadly advertised to pretty much every potentially relevant talk page) was closed recently as WP:SNOW. The sole contrarian voice has insisted on reopening it, but does not seem to be presenting a new argument, just displeasure, so I think the close should be restored. (Indeed, that person's argument is basically to just refer to previous discussions where they made the same arguments before.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, SMcCandlish, I've just looked at that to see if I could help, and I'm finding it quite tricky. I agree with you that, if you see the discussion as a choice between two options, then that choice is simple almost to the point of being trivial. But whenever I look at an RfC that asks for a binary choice, my first question is: "Are these choices mutually exclusive"? Because if they aren't and there's support for both sides, then the first thing to consider should be "do both".In this case, the framing of the RfC makes the choices mutually exclusive, but I haven't been able to follow why they need to be. Clearly, there could exist two kinds of template: one for cross-namespace redirects and the other for same-namespace redirects. I haven't been able to see the reason why that's excluded. Considering that this affects templates on a truckload of pages, I've decided it's better for me not to touch it. Maybe someone else will find it closable?—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1455 days ago on 1 January 2021) Requesting closure of this MOS question.--Trystan (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1447 days ago on 10 January 2021) Consensus appears to be leaning towards one article, but there is an added complication in whether the article itself should be renamed. — Czello 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1474 days ago on 13 December 2020) RFC proposing merger of Newsmax TV to Newsmax due to redundancy. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1447 days ago on 9 January 2021) It had clear-cut responses, so I think it's not a hard one. It would nice if someone closed this.Magnus Dominus (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just as a cautionary note, the very first !vote in that RfC is from a blocked sock. Since the discussion is archived, I didn't strike the comment. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1474 days ago on 14 December 2020) A rather convoluted, expired RfC in a divisive content area. There was quite a lot of input and it'd be nice if an uninvolved editor could review whether there's a consensus in favour or against any of the individual questions, so that the effort's not gone to waste. Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1476 days ago on 12 December 2020) Controversial topic, will need a proper closing when the time comes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
(Initiated 1462 days ago on 25 December 2020) Need an uninvolved editor or admin to close this RfC. Discussion is about whether or not to emphasize throughout the article that there isn't a consensus on whether the Chetniks engaged in genocide. --Griboski (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1393 days ago on 4 March 2021) Please review this and close Talk:Daihatsu Rocky#Requested move 5 March 2021 Quattro (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Sagquattro2009: It's been open for one days and two hours. RMs usually run for a week at the least, so why do you want it closing so quickly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I realised that it makes no sense to move. After seeing some examples like Daihatsu Taft, Suzuki Baleno, and Honda Jazz, I decided that moving wasn't worth it. Quattro (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- In which case, why do you need an admin to close it? See WP:RMCLOSE#Conflicts of interest, last paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I realised that it makes no sense to move. After seeing some examples like Daihatsu Taft, Suzuki Baleno, and Honda Jazz, I decided that moving wasn't worth it. Quattro (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} – To editor Quattro: closed as "withdrawn". P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1399 days ago on 27 February 2021) JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1423 days ago on 2 February 2021) Discussion has run its course and we now need someone uninvolved to assess the conclusions of whether or not to insert this content. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1759 days ago on 3 March 2020) It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could assess the consensus for a merge from List of names for cannabis strains to List of names for cannabis, being discussed at Talk:List of names for cannabis#Proposed merge of List of names for cannabis strains into List of names for cannabis. The last contribution was in mid-January. Klbrain (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1454 days ago on 3 January 2021) Difficult close, relatively evenly split on votes, slightly favouring inclusion, but there are other issues that need to be taken into account, like whether or not they are a reliable source. Close has been requested by another user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- RfC has been archived, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_326#RfC:_The_Needle_Drop. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1453 days ago on 3 January 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to comment and close the discussion, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 17:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1421 days ago on 5 February 2021) Thirty days have lapsed, just needs formal closure from an uninvolved editor.LM2000 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1435 days ago on 21 January 2021) Discussion has been quite lengthy and many proposals have been put forward, making consensus difficult to determine. A formal closure by an uninvolved user is necessary. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
still doing. It's a very complicated discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1423 days ago on 3 February 2021) Could someone please close this discussion at WT:FAC regarding an addition to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}, thanks @Wugapodes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1481 days ago on 7 December 2020) Has been open since December 7 2020. Khirurg (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the IBT article dated 22 August 2017 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash?
(Initiated 1442 days ago on 14 January 2021) Hi, can somebody neutral close the Talk:Bitcoin Cash#RfC: Does the IBT article dated 22 August 2017 confirm the claim that Bitcoin Cash is sometimes also referred to as Bcash? request for comment discussion, please? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1442 days ago on 15 January 2021) Requesting closure on the discussion to add OpenCritic Percentage Recommended Score to Video Game Manual of Style on Reception sections. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1432 days ago on 24 January 2021) An uninvolved experienced editor is needed to assess consensus on six questions. A conduct issue is now pending a Arbitration Enforcement concerning one of the editors, so that an uninvolved editor must be one who is not a party to the conduct dispute. My role was only composing and posting the RFC, and I am willing to assess consensus if other editors agree that I am neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1425 days ago on 31 January 2021) An uninvolved experienced editor is needed to assess consensus. There was a nuanced discussion regarding the appropriateness of using certain images within the article and I am involved. The discussion has largely died out and a formal close would be helpful in moving forward. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1417 days ago on 8 February 2021) Discussion has run for nearly thirty days and has largely petered out. A formal close will be useful for future reference, and because consensus is not abundantly clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1417 days ago on 9 February 2021) Requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... In next hour or so. Go Phightins! 23:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
" {{done}} Go Phightins! 23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1408 days ago on 17 February 2021) An univolved editor is required to assess whether 1) it would be premature for a close (there have been no new contributions to the survey or by new editors in a while, and what little discussion there is is mostly stalled between the same few editors) 2) what consensus, if any, has emerged from the discussion at this stage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} The conversation still appears to be active and, candidly, based on my reading, has not (yet?) reached a consensus. Go Phightins! 23:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1469 days ago on 19 December 2020) Requesting closure on this one. Only 2 votes. It's been a while. TanookiKoopa (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- actually, 3 votes in favor and 1 against. However, the vote against the merge is apparently based on policy. -
Daveout(talk) 12:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC) - {{done}} ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1411 days ago on 15 February 2021) Could an uninvolved and experienced editor please close the discussion here? It looks like the discussion has stopped (I am the only editor to have commented since 8 March). The discussion focused largely on the WP:USEBYOTHERS guideline and the WP:GLOBAL essay section in determining the extent to which we could consider the source reliable. I think the discussion clearly achieved a rough consensus regarding Radio Free Asia's reliability (and whether or not in-text attribution is recommended), though I was involved in the discussion so I would prefer if another user could take a look at it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1476 days ago on 12 December 2020) No discussion in over a month.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1622 days ago on 18 July 2020) Responses are infrequent but seem to clearly trend in one direction. I'd prefer a formal closure before commencing the merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1410 days ago on 16 February 2021) Requesting an outside editor to determine consensus and bring this RfC to a close. I would also ask that the closing editor decide, based on consensus, one way or another if the proposed information should be "stated as fact" or not if indeed included. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: I was in the process of writing a closure for this discussion as well, but I agree with your conclusion. Since I also answered CeltBrowne's additional request, I've added some of my text below your own. Sunrise (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Sunrise: Oh I see, well the more the merrier I suppose! We should probably start using the Doing... template more often as noted in the header of the page. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 02:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Sunrise: Oh I see, well the more the merrier I suppose! We should probably start using the
- @Spy-cicle: I was in the process of writing a closure for this discussion as well, but I agree with your conclusion. Since I also answered CeltBrowne's additional request, I've added some of my text below your own. Sunrise (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: @Sunrise: Thank you both for taking an interest and bringing the RfC to a speedy close. I had feared it could take another month before anything happened. CeltBrowne (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1395 days ago on 3 March 2021) – Nearly 8 days since last relisted. Please either close or relist. Linguist111talk 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} - I was not aware of this request until now. (Non-administrator comment) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1706 days ago on 26 April 2020) Could an uninvolved editor review the conensus for a merge between DIY ethic and Do it yourself at Talk:Do it yourself#Proposed merge of DIY ethic into Do it yourself. Klbrain (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1451 days ago on 6 January 2021) I am involved, so I cannot close it, but it would be highly useful to determine consensus and to make a listing at WP:RSP following the close. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Update: The discussion has moved to an archive due to a lack of new comments. Closure is probably in order. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1455 days ago on 1 January 2021) Been open for almost a month and a half. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment from Celestina007 — Perhaps asides template editing & new page reviewing, file moving has to be the most complex and interesting fields one can operate in, infact as I told Godsy today I fell in love with working with files because of its complexity as it isn’t so much about moving the files, but understanding in general, file policies such as WP:IUP & WP:FURG and list of other polices or guidelines before proceeding to initiate a “rename media”, it’s very interesting & I can’t say that enough. The major problem Alexis raised was that I needed to do more reviewing and their currently was no backlog at the time I made the request so there wasn’t any real need to have the perm(which indeed was a plausible reason) but of recent I’ve seen a backlog growing, thus I believe it’s my onus, “if I claim to love working with files” to step in now & start working if given the perm without which I can’t reduce the backlog. Celestina007 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1504 days ago on 13 November 2020) Deadlock of opinions, and discussion seems to have died down, need outside person to take a look and close it. Good day, Hehpillt28 (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, I'm not going to have time to actually write my closing statement for another week, probably. Given how these things go, I am guessing nobody else will do it before then, but if you want to, be my guest. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: It's been two weeks. Any update? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Pppery: Sorry, I fell sick and it slipped my mind. I will try to get to it in the next couple of days; if I don't, someone else can feel free to take it over. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: It's been two weeks. Any update? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, I'm not going to have time to actually write my closing statement for another week, probably. Given how these things go, I am guessing nobody else will do it before then, but if you want to, be my guest. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1448 days ago on 9 January 2021). This is about whether to include an antisemitism themed sidebar in the Parler app article. - Daveout(talk) 18:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Doing...— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Upon closer examination, this discussion appears to be fairly close. At least one editor in the discussion explicitly asked for an uninvolved admin to close it, so I will step back for now since I am not an admin. I may re-examine it in ~2-3 weeks or so and provide a formal close if nobody else handles this by then. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: Please just close it. Any uninvolved editor can do it. (if anybody disagrees with your closure, they can always ask an admin to review it). I think it's very clear that there's no consensus to include the sidebar. -
Daveout(talk) 23:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)- @Daveout:Will close. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would undo that if I were you, no offense but a discussion that contentious could use a set of more experienced eyes. nableezy - 03:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Would you like to take a look? I could undo it if you would like to. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- There are two experienced admins opposing the inclusion of the sidebar already, and none, as far I am aware of, supporting it. The closure looks fine. Thank you Mikehawk10, for taking the time to carefully analyze this quite lenghty discussion. -
Daveout(talk) 03:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I would undo that if I were you, no offense but a discussion that contentious could use a set of more experienced eyes. nableezy - 03:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Daveout:Will close. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Mikehawk10: Please just close it. Any uninvolved editor can do it. (if anybody disagrees with your closure, they can always ask an admin to review it). I think it's very clear that there's no consensus to include the sidebar. -
- Upon closer examination, this discussion appears to be fairly close. At least one editor in the discussion explicitly asked for an uninvolved admin to close it, so I will step back for now since I am not an admin. I may re-examine it in ~2-3 weeks or so and provide a formal close if nobody else handles this by then. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1383 days ago on 15 March 2021) – ask that an experienced editor please complete a speedy procedural closure of this move request. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Note: This attempt to speedily close the discussion has gotten a bit of pushback in the discussion on the relevant page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)- {{not done}} The discussion was closed (substantively) by Sdkb * Pppery * it has begun... 04:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1463 days ago on 25 December 2020) – Related discussions, most of them leading up to the RfC, mainly at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Swiss-Radio-and-TV "outing" of Chopin (and some subsequent sections on that talk page); and at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200#Frédéric Chopin. Uninvolved closure seems necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I suggest that User:Smerus initiates these actions, because the new article Sexuality of Chopin seriously compromises this particular RfC. Smerus has made the most edits to Frédéric Chopin and was responsible for bringing the article to WP:FA status. So far there seems to be consensus amongst User:Smerus, User:Nihil novi, User:Toccata quarta, User:Kosboot, User:JackofOz, User:SPECIFICO, User:Darwinek, user:Piotrus, user:Aza24 and me. I suggest an experienced administrator. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am not sure that I should initiate anything in this matter, given the apparent hostility towards me of some of the editors contributing to the discussion. Isn't this a matter for the consideration of @Robert McClenon: who is i/c the RfC? I agree that the involvement of a senior administrator would be helpful.--Smerus (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Francis Schonken, Mathsci, and Smerus: - Well, first, I am hardly in charge of the RFC, as if anyone was in charge of it. I was merely trying to find a way to spread the unhappiness evenly. My own opinion is:
- The discussion of this topic should be moved to the main section of WP:AN.
- The creation of the sub-article Sexuality of Chopin was an end run around the RFC, and I would rather see an end run in American football than in Wikipedia.
- However, now that the sub-article has been created, either the sub-article should be deleted or merged into the main article, or any issues should be addressed in the sub-article.
- The RFC is moot if the sub-article is kept.
- If the sub-article is merged or deleted, an administrator should close the RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Re. suggestion to move to AN: disagree – the RfC can be closed without splitting the same discussion over multiple pages.
- Re. end run: the existence or non-existence of a sub-article is unrelated to the RfC.
- Re. "either the sub-article should be deleted or merged into the main article, or any issues should be addressed in the sub-article" – no, the RfC decides on what goes in the main article, irrespective of the existence of a sub-article.
- Re. RfC becoming moot after creation of sub-article: no, that suggestion makes no sense.
- Re. conditions on close of the RfC: no, again, the suggestion of such conditions makes no sense.
- --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Re: end run, yes, the POV fork is an end run around the RfC. The RfC was always intended to be about how the matter is covered in Wikipedia; claiming it only applies to material under a specific title is WP:WIKILAWYERing. IMO an admin should G6 delete the fork or protect it as a redirect as a violation of dispute resolution procedures. Crossroads -talk- 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I support the opinion of Crossroads in this matter.--Smerus (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Re: end run, yes, the POV fork is an end run around the RfC. The RfC was always intended to be about how the matter is covered in Wikipedia; claiming it only applies to material under a specific title is WP:WIKILAWYERing. IMO an admin should G6 delete the fork or protect it as a redirect as a violation of dispute resolution procedures. Crossroads -talk- 06:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The irritating thing about modifying RfCs after creation is that it makes it difficult to see how much support there is for a certain option, because most don't revisit a discussion. A "remove entirely" option should've been part of the original RfC. At least one editor who voted for an option to retain the content originally changed their vote to the option F afterwards. After F was added, there was a notable % of support for that option. It's thus harder to determine, purely from the survey, a consensus on whether the content should be in the article imo. Possibly a more dedicated closer will be willing to read through all the threaded discussion and parse intentions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I have tagged the redirect as a Redirect for Discussion and am recommending that it be fully protected. However, if the community thinks, in the RFD discussion, that the sub-article should exist, that is a valid result of the RFD also. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I have adopted the suggestion of Robert McClenon and raised the closure of the RfC at Administrators' notice board.--Smerus (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
In appealing yet again for someone to close this RfC, can I mention that this has now been waiting so long that part of the related discussions has now been automatically archived to Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_19.--Smerus (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}, although probably not to the satisfaction of any of the parties. The community hasn't reached any conclusions about how to handle this matter.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1460 days ago on 28 December 2020) No consensus reached, but some policy oversight needed. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: There is also an older RfC on the same talk page that is also ripe for closure, Talk:Donald Gary Young#RfC: worker killed by pressure device designed by Young. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@BD2412:: I closed the RfC you mentioned in the section title here. On the other one, I am not sure I am in a good position to assess the consensus there. Based on a single read, it didn't look like consensus had really been reached, and candidly, I am too tired at the moment to dig into it further. Thanks, Go Phightins! 00:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- Was closed, marked as {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1407 days ago on 18 February 2021) Please close the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Page mover/delete-redirect#RFC on granting delete-redirect to page movers. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Was closed, marked as {{done}} --DannyS712 (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1422 days ago on 4 February 2021) – please close this Move review discussion. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 16:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by No such user (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1410 days ago on 15 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} Formal closure appears unneeded, thread was already archived --DannyS712 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1395 days ago on 2 March 2021) A closure here does not seem too controversial. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1396 days ago on 1 March 2021) It only has been 10 days, but there seems to be a consensus for Option 3. Could an uninvolved editor take a look and close it if they feel it appropriate? Talk:John_Oliver#Request_for_comment:_lead_sentence Eccekevin (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1444 days ago on 13 January 2021) Open since 13 January 2021, already relisted twice. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1428 days ago on 28 January 2021) Went stale for at least two weeks after last comment. --George Ho (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. Withdrawing as the article was redirected per AFD. --George Ho (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1421 days ago on 4 February 2021) Needs uninvolved editor to close this. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}}: Closed as create and merge per wp:CONSENSUS. GenQuest "scribble" 03:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1456 days ago on 1 January 2021) I would appreciate of someone can formally close this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1424 days ago on 2 February 2021) Long discussion on a complex and high-profile topic, but no activity in over a week. Needs a look-over and a good closure from an experienced, uninvolved editor. Consensus unclear on first spec. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1397 days ago on 28 February 2021) Heart (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1376 days ago on 21 March 2021) Talk:Derek_Chauvin#Splitting_proposal --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1436 days ago on 20 January 2021) Discussion has died down for over a week and consensus is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glide08 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC) {{done}} – no consensus and discussion has already been archived. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1409 days ago on 17 February 2021) - no new comments since 14 March. The entry at WP:RSP needs updated based on the outcome of this RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} Stifle (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1407 days ago on 19 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{nd}} this RfC was closed within 24 hours and as such not advertised. It has next to zero actual participation and a consensus cannot be ascertained from the discussion. @Jax 0677: can you please be more careful submitting requests for closure? There's a large backlog on this board and around 1/3 of the requests are submitted by you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1398 days ago on 28 February 2021) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} by JFG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1384 days ago on 14 March 2021) This discussion has been open for 10 days and could probably be left open for another few, but it must be closed before April 1 or it will be moot. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Wug. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts
(Initiated 1389 days ago on 9 March 2021) There have been a couple of requests for closure of WP:AN#Review of DRV closures by King of Hearts - I've put out some requests elsewhere, but am struggling to get someone to review it (most of the DRV crew are INVOLVED, but it shouldn't need specialist knowledge in that field to close) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1443 days ago on 14 January 2021) Need not involved editor to determinate the consensus of the Rfc and its mother thread. Matthew hk (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Salix alba (talk): 07:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1432 days ago on 24 January 2021) Could an admin please close the discussion at talk:Main_Page/Archive_200#Adding_a_link_to_the_Teahouse_in_the_“Other_areas_of_Wikipedia”_section to determine the consensus and implement the necessary changes? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Interstellarity: Since it's been sitting around for a while I've closed it. Hope the close provides a path forward. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{already done}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1413 days ago on 12 February 2021) – Was relisted from a DRV and appears to have not made it into the normal system. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Barkeep49. Daniel (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1397 days ago on 1 March 2021) Could an uninvolved editor please review the consensus for a merger of World ocean into ocean at this discussion and then carry out the closing accordingly? EMsmile (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
{{done}} --Salix alba (talk): 04:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1405 days ago on 21 February 2021) Khiikiat (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}}. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1483 days ago on 5 December 2020) This Rfc ended a few days ago and followed lengthy discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Talk:Germans. Because of the divisiveness of the issue and the polarized (and at times tense) nature of the discussion, the Rfc would probably be best closed by an administrator. --Tserton (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1461 days ago on 27 December 2020) Open way longer than necessary, and is pretty short. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1460 days ago on 27 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with no action taken. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1401 days ago on 25 February 2021) Heart (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have made the close, though I would welcome some feedback before this section is archived. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @力: Nothing wrong with the close.
It was well written, in my opinion. The one thing that I would add though is that discounting A because it is the status quo doesn't sound right. Generally speaking, there can be consensus to stick with the status quo and discounting purely on the grounds that it is what is already done could create a fallacy. Marking this section as done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{done}} Thanks; I've re-worded slightly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- @力: Nothing wrong with the close.
(Initiated 1636 days ago on 4 July 2020) (oldest) – These discussions are ready for closure and/or additional comments (non-admin assistance is welcomed). Many have been open for months and I've either already commented or re-listed. Thanks, FASTILY 00:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
(Initiated 1460 days ago on 28 December 2020) Could an experienced editor please review this discussion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Appears to be POV pushing on these RfCs (multiple RfCs running at the same time, meandering proposals in the RfCs, etc). It would be helpful for more uninvolved editors to have a look. Quite a political topic that both pro-china and pro-hong kong editors I would guess are involved in. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't even saw any rfc tag..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's probably why it's under "Other types of closing requests" and not under "Requests for comment". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it not a Rfc. Don't claim it as one. Since it did not even tagged as a Rfc, then people running a lot of Rfc to running out the commenting quota from those editors with RfC quota, does not affect this thread : Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date . Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - @Matthew hk:, thank you! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- If it not a Rfc. Don't claim it as one. Since it did not even tagged as a Rfc, then people running a lot of Rfc to running out the commenting quota from those editors with RfC quota, does not affect this thread : Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#End date . Matthew hk (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- That's probably why it's under "Other types of closing requests" and not under "Requests for comment". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't even saw any rfc tag..... Matthew hk (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- I see nothing to close there. There clearly isn't support for renaming the article, but a close wouldn't affect that, you would need a follow-up WP:RM discussion. Regarding the wider question of when the protest event "ended", there is minimal well-sourced discussion of that topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I concur that there is nothing here to close. A WP:RM discussion appears in order. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Reply - To prevent WP:MULTI, it may be prudent to close this discussion and to call attention to Talk:2019–20 Hong Kong protests#Requested move 4 April 2021. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- {{not done}} for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)