Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 24
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Closure requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive290#Community ban discussion (moved from WP:ANI) (Initiated 2705 days ago on 26 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by 78.26. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved closure. I would welcome a solo or duo closure, i.e. one or two editors/admins. --George Ho (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
{{already done}} DrStrauss talk 19:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I would like a closure as the user is being disruptive and preventing the community's decision from being enforced. The consensus is also nearly unanimous. (Initiated 2764 days ago on 28 April 2017) nihlus kryik (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- The RfC has hit 30 days today. Calling it "nearly unanimous" is contentious and some arguments go against WP:PRIMARY, so there is enough to sift through that it might be advisable to seek an admin particularly well-versed in that policy.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- After two days of heavy comments, this RfC is well over 30 days since initiation. The WP:PRIMARY-related question is: "Can editors make subjective claims based on the primary-source episodes without providing a cite (timestamp and quote) as to what exactly was said?" --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}} and Exhausted. And Lame. Snuge purveyor (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 139#RfC on the notability of flying aces (Initiated 2768 days ago on 24 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Otto Warmbier#Request for comments dated 28 April 2017 (Initiated 2764 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted:-Winged Blades Godric 06:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with no consensus to remove "allegedly". (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2729 days ago on 1 June 2017) Consensus has been reached that United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement should not be merged into Paris Agreement. I'm requesting that this stale discussion is closed. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Winged Blades of Godric. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would someone please formally close this. Legobot removed the RfC template as lapsed after a month a few days ago, and it has yet to be closed. (Initiated 2745 days ago on 17 May 2017) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for proposed instruction. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
As suggested at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1, I am requesting a closure done by an uninvolved closer. Pre-RFC: (Initiated 2869 days ago on 13 January 2017); RFC: (Initiated 2722 days ago on 9 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} - discussion is only 22 days old, and it's a fairly clear outcome. Primefac (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- This can be closed on or after 9 July 2017. Cunard (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at RfC at Talk:Voting method#This naming is simply wrong. (Initiated 2733 days ago on 29 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Be bold#Proposal to add a sentence about page moves (Initiated 2745 days ago on 17 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Eggishorn (non-admin closure) (duplicate request). Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 140#Reviving Wikipedia:Administrator review? (Initiated 2723 days ago on 8 June 2017)? A close is necessary to determine whether the {{Historical}} tag should be kept or removed from Wikipedia:Administrator review. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. Already archived and the discussion was not set up in a way that required formal closure. Deryck C. 15:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2805 days ago on 18 March 2017). -- Tavix (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved closer. (Initiated 2755 days ago on 7 May 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}} Proposed wording was declined. I boldly altered the second sentence of WP:CANVASS in a way I believe reflects the result of this discussion. Someone please have a look and revert if considered inappropriate. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The consensus needs to be assessed by an experienced user. (Initiated 2771 days ago on 20 April 2017) --Mhhossein talk 19:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Can someone uninvolved close this please? The discussion was partially closed, but then the conversation continues. Thanks. (Initiated 2699 days ago on 2 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Per your below request (this is a duplicate), {{not done}}. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This should be also closed by uninvolved closer soon. (Initiated 2702 days ago on 29 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC); amended for neutrality, 06:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason whatsoever to "close" this. The discussion is of the typical POV-pushing sort and has otherwise petered off naturally. {{not done}} --Izno (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#User:Magioladitis high speed editing (Initiated 2701 days ago on 30 June 2017)? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I rewuest admin assist to close the related BRFA which has consensus and all the BAG mebers I conacted deny to close it. I also note that Primefak did not rejet the idea of Yobot doing the task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Abequinn14 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} User blocked by Alex Shih. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Because of the nature of this ANI — and what resulted from the closure by a non-administrator of an interpersonal ANI related to it — closure by an Administrator is essential. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary talk 13:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an interpersonal ANI that the OP prevented from being closed. It has deteriorated. Constructive responses by neutral editors has ended. (Initiated 2701 days ago on 30 June 2017) Pyxis Solitary talk 13:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Melania Trump#Alma mater (Initiated 2716 days ago on 14 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - The RFC was closed prior to 30 days having run, with a No Consensus finding. (Did someone step outside in the Southern Hemisphere and conclude that it was snowing No Consensus?) The closure was then reversed (re-opened), but 30 days did not run, and there still is no consensus. I am only closing the RFC to conclude that there was no consensus but the RFC was not allowed to run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Robert. May you fix the
indentationplease? It looks awkward. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)- User:George Ho - Indentation of what? The handling of the RFC was awkward. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh... I see that you already fixed the formatting of your response. Well, I realized that "indentation" was unclear, so I struck it. I should have specifically said, "
:should be added". It's fixed, so there. --George Ho (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)- Thank you for closing the RfC, Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh... I see that you already fixed the formatting of your response. Well, I realized that "indentation" was unclear, so I struck it. I should have specifically said, "
- User:George Ho - Indentation of what? The handling of the RFC was awkward. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Robert. May you fix the
(Initiated 2725 days ago on 6 June 2017) The RfC template has been removed by Legobot because the discussion has petered down. However, a formal close is highly desirable, as the result of this RfC potentially affects thousands of articles on academic journals. An uninvolved closer is sorely needed. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Randykitty: It wasn't removed because the discussion has petered down, it was removed because thirty days (actually 30 days and 48 minutes) had elapsed since the
{{rfc}}was started. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)- I stand corected. Nevertheless, a formal close seems higly desirable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2885 days ago on 28 December 2016). Request emphatic and clear closure directing the complainant to drop their quest. I would further appreciate their being strongly warned that they will be blocked, or actually, better, for them to be blocked for a month or two or six now, for pursuing it, given extensive and clear feedback they have received already. They made their preferred edit today (which I reverted). --doncram 20:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I volunteer that it is not necessary for a closer to go further than simply considering the merits and closing the discussion. You can skip considering any block or other action; please excuse my wishful thinking about that, it is really not necessary (and by the way there has not been any further re-implementation of the inappropriate deletion). There is unanimous agreement by all but one editor that the quotation is fine, so it should be an easy call. --doncram 01:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} Tazerdadog (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Tazerdadog (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please as (re-)requested at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/HIStory/Ghosts/1. pre-RFC: (Initiated 2869 days ago on 13 January 2017); RfC: (Initiated 2722 days ago on 9 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. Proposed split unananimously approved. Snuge purveyor (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2865 days ago on 17 January 2017) Stale discussion, needs someone to put it out of its misery please. GiantSnowman 08:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted for RFC to increase participation. --George Ho (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Another request to close this discussion. (Initiated 2763 days ago on 29 April 2017) --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2744 days ago on 17 May 2017) Would appreciate it if an uninvolved editor would review and close the discussion on coverage of the "Scalability debate" in the Bitcoin article. N2e (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--General talk-page discussions are hardly ever closed.Winged Blades Godric 04:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2695 days ago on 6 July 2017) The consensus for this discussion has been established as a merge to CNN controversies. The brunt of the opposed voters have been blocked as sockpuppets, in addition to the fact that the page was stale days prior to the discussion, bringing it to a WP:NOTNEWS issue. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer may be needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2708 days ago on 23 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}:-Winged Blades Godric 08:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Please, close this. (Initiated 2764 days ago on 28 April 2017). Erlbaeko (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Khan Shaykhun chemical attack#Request for comment on Theodore Postol's views and responsibility for the attack (Initiated 2764 days ago on 28 April 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for the RfC as asked. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alone in the Universe#RfC: Studio Album Chronology (Initiated 2759 days ago on 3 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with limited consensus to reduce the infobox to one studio album chronology. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussions need closure by uninvolved editor. (Initiated 2703 days ago on 28 June 2017) George Ho (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've {{done}} the two oldest, the one remaining is the most recent, I've updated the counter just above. Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2705 days ago on 26 June 2017) Last post was made 1 July on a merger proposal that reached a consensus to not merge. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}} Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the merger proposal, Snuge purveyor (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2792 days ago on 31 March 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin close that in relation to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55? The close can be either a) No b) Yes c) Yes but by your account. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the discussion, Salvidrim! (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC: Possible POV of §Authoritarian tendencies (Initiated 2748 days ago on 14 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Closed as moot; the section in question has been removed entirely. (non-admin closure)Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC) updated Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)- Your closure is reverted, Eggishorn. May you please modify the "done" template, so the bot won't archive the request? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus to retain the POV tags but further specific remedies for other concerns expressed requires further focused discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your closure is reverted, Eggishorn. May you please modify the "done" template, so the bot won't archive the request? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ali Hassan Salameh#RfC on whether the article should include more detailed background about his father (Initiated 2743 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hasan Salama#RfC on what aspects of Hasan Salama's life should be mentioned in the lead (Initiated 2743 days ago on 19 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Drmies; for the bot :D. --George Ho (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2725 days ago on 6 June 2017) Need some help closing this discussion since it's contentious + I'm involved + opinions are mixed. Thanks! Banedon (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by RileyBugz, to whom I thank. --George Ho (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the RfC, RileyBugz! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 3020 days ago on 15 August 2016) The discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 May 30#File:WernerHerrmann.jpg has been relisted SEVEN FIVE times since August 2016. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I have relisted all of the simple discussions that I can disposition. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment – OTRS agent, I left a statement on the discussion about the status of that file's claimed pending ticket. seb26 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Sandstein. Deryck C. 18:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the FfD, Sandstein! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2708 days ago on 23 June 2017) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for closing the TfD, Deryck Chan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
This needs a stake driven through its heart, per WP:SNOW and WP:IDHT. Hopefully an Admin can get the message across. I suggest if the editor wishes to pursue this, rather than carry on debate at articles, or at the WikiProject level, they must make a proposal to change WP:UNITS, and WP:CARUNITS and WP:MCNUM will defer accordingly. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}. @Dennis Bratland: ANRFC does not try to force an end to ongoing discussions that aren't set up to explicitly require closure. If you want fresh pairs of eyes in the discussion, please request further input on the talk pages of the other WikiProjects and guidelines you've referred to. If you are concerned about the behaviour of an individual editor, please take it up with them directly or request intervention at WP:ANI. Deryck C. 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 13#RfC about infobox changes (Initiated 2756 days ago on 6 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Edited to update link to correct archive page. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}} - Nothing in need of a close. Collaborative discussion agreeably applied various infobox changes. Alsee (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#Deletion of name info (Initiated 2747 days ago on 15 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2760 days ago on 2 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Deryck Chan. Thank you for closing the RfD! Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2719 days ago on 12 June 2017) Frietjes (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Plastikspork. Thank you for closing the TfD! Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2770 days ago on 22 April 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2755 days ago on 7 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2737 days ago on 25 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bahá'í Faith#Request for Comment: Lead Section (Initiated 2745 days ago on 17 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as moot due to consensus being previously implemented. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Could somebody kindly assess consensus at Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include events related to Trump's tweets that the Obama administration has wiretapped him? Early close requested because discussion has ceased for a while and the debated issue is kind of moot. (Initiated 2735 days ago on 27 May 2017) — JFG talk 05:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed by RileyBugz on 18 July 2017 with a consensus to not include. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vladimir Lenin#RfC regarding the parallel drawn between the cult of personality of Lenin, and that of George Washington (Initiated 2736 days ago on 26 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for removal of the challenged statement. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Portland train attack#RfC about the title of the article (Initiated 2726 days ago on 5 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2694 days ago on 7 July 2017) Was sent to a first FFD on 15 June 2017 at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 June 15#File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png. Closed as delete. Sent to DRV same day of FFD close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 23. Closed as overturn and relisted. Placed for FFD again as linked above. Discussion has died down for 2+ 6+ days now. The issues at the core of this discussion require an administrator with significant knowledge in WP:NFCC issues. Regardless of close, if an administrator doesn't get this close right, it's likely to end up at DRV again. The cycle needs to be broken. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} (hopefully?) Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 21:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2739 days ago on 23 May 2017) No activity in >30 days and near-unanimous delete. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as delete by Salvidrim!. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved editor to close this. (Initiated 2702 days ago on 29 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Ethereum#RFC on lede paragraph (Initiated 2741 days ago on 21 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as no consensus for any one of the presented options. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 4032 days ago on 7 November 2013) Requesting closure of this merge discussion by an uninvolved admin or user. North America1000 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}, FWIW Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 04:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The request is a little early, but this should not imply early closure, which should be performed by uninvolved editor, also not involved in the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 135#RfC: sister projects in search results. (Initiated 2708 days ago on 23 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Kaldari, who proposed it. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Women's Equality Party#Proposal to remove 'nonpartisan' from the info box (Initiated 2761 days ago on 1 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2674 days ago on 27 July 2017) Officially withdrew this nomination. BangJan1999 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Maher. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2700 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}, summarizing rationale provided--Kostas20142 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Discussion went stale; a closure by uninvolved editor is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2705 days ago on 26 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} I've done it and provided a closing rationale. DrStrauss talk 17:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Matthew Gordon Banks#RfC- on recent edits by Moist towelett and determine if it's a BLP issue. (Initiated 2703 days ago on 28 June 2017). Thanks- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2672 days ago on 29 July 2017) As the nominator, I think the consensus is pretty clear now. DrStrauss talk 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} per WP:SNOW --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2735 days ago on 27 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2732 days ago on 30 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2738 days ago on 24 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2733 days ago on 29 May 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2669 days ago on 1 August 2017) Officially withdrawn nomination. BangJan1999 14:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2691 days ago on 10 July 2017) Please close this merge discussion, mind the policy-backed arguments czar 17:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2700 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2704 days ago on 27 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as consensus to include. - MrX 13:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture#RfC - Listing Newton's achievements (Initiated 2719 days ago on 12 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Rough consensus to list Newton's scientific achievements in the the introduction of the article. - MrX 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:George Harrison#RfC (Initiated 2713 days ago on 18 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed as Tryptofish C.- MrX 21:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hungarians#RfC on Kniezsa's ethnic map from 1938 (Initiated 2716 days ago on 15 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 21:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Italy#RfC about the photo in the economy section (Initiated 2714 days ago on 17 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus is to use the Fiat photo. - MrX 14:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2783 days ago on 9 April 2017) Discussion has faded out on this "No original research" topic - closure by an uninvolved editor would be welcome. Batternut (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{close}} {{not done}} - Far too little participation to assess consensus.- MrX 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator or editor consider closing this request. (Initiated 2717 days ago on 14 June 2017) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This page was a serious battleground, but consensus for keep has been clearly reached and the page stabilized, with most of the participants on both sides of the spectrum actively and productively collaborating to improve it. (Initiated 2689 days ago on 12 July 2017). DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Requesting whichever admin reviews this
to wait until the current deletion review is closed before closing this proposal.Closed now. WikiVirusC Simply for the sake of complete closure on the matter that started with the AfD. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)- This really needs to be closed and done with. I am involved, but I think the clear consensus is to Keep and do not merge.Casprings (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} The consensus for "keep" was clear, so I closed it even though I am WP:INVOLVED. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)#RfC: Disposing a body (Initiated 2735 days ago on 27 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus is to exclude the proposed content.- MrX 15:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:McMahon–Hussein Correspondence#RfC (Initiated 2731 days ago on 31 May 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Consensus is to keep the table (not original research).- MrX 15:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved closer is needed please. Thanks. (Initiated 2700 days ago on 1 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - Closed: consensus is to include. - MrX 15:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox (Initiated 2724 days ago on 7 June 2017)? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - There is rough consensus for including a pushpin map in the infobox.- MrX 16:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Charice Pempengco#Jake Zyrus (Initiated 2695 days ago on 6 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{close}} - {{not done}} - Malformed RfC terminated by Redrose64.- MrX 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#RfC: some italicisation questions regarding catalogues, sets, collections and types of creative works (Initiated 2725 days ago on 6 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Doing... Another editor has posted the {{closing}} template on the RfC.- MrX 16:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:30 Rock#RfC: Is it misleading to say that 30 Rock was critically acclaimed "throughout its run"? (Initiated 2722 days ago on 9 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - No consensus. - MrX 16:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:CeCe Peniston discography#Request for comment (Initiated 2719 days ago on 12 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{close}} - {{not done}} - Not a proper RfC. Not neutrally worded. Impossible to determine consensus with so few commenters and so much bickering.- MrX 17:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of secret police organizations#RfC- Use of Human Rights Groups as sources (Initiated 2715 days ago on 16 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - No consensus. - MrX 17:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Needs uninvolved closer please. Thanks. (Initiated 2730 days ago on 1 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Teamwork closure is requested by the RfC proposer Guy Macon at "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closers needed for a very sensitive RfC." Therefore, I shall abide to request for teamwork and wait for two or three closers interested. --George Ho (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- While a team of closers were found (in the afore-linked thread), current plans are to relist it.So deferred for 30 days(ideally)!Winged Blades Godric 18:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the discussion was moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy, so I changed the link in the header. --George Ho (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've been brave, and this is now {{done}} Mdann52 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Proposed changes to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (Initiated 2696 days ago on 5 July 2017)? Thanks, Mitchumch (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
There has been a discussion of the wording/content of the good article criteria. It has been open for around two weeks with no edits for four days; closure by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated. 22:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Milburn (talk • contribs)
- Just in case: (Initiated 2698 days ago on 3 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Military college dispute getting out of hand (Initiated 2719 days ago on 12 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
StaleDrStrauss talk 17:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Needs archiving, so I'll say {{already done}} by DrStrauss. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Seeking an experienced editor to assess consensus. Much appreciated. (Initiated 2695 days ago on 6 July 2017) ―Mandruss ☎ 04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Doing... --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} for Kostas20142 by request at my talk page, see [1]. Regards SoWhy 13:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
A solo closure by an uninvolved editor may suffice. Nevertheless, I welcome a joint closure performed by two. (Initiated 2712 days ago on 19 June 2017) --George Ho (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Doing... - Another editor has posted the {{closing}} template on the RfC. — Music1201 talk 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2694 days ago on 6 July 2017). Requesting closure by an uninvolved user. North America1000 10:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should evaluate and close the discussion. (Initiated 2680 days ago on 21 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--The closure is stayed.Participation has not died down entirely.Winged Blades Godric 16:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2683 days ago on 18 July 2017)Seems to be a keep or a no consensus. I don't want to NAC or Relist it, though. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC){{done}}
A bot has just removed the RFC template as "expired" (see [2]) but no Admin has weighed in to make a determination on whether there or not there's consensus for the proposal. I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin can take a look and make a determination? (Initiated 2717 days ago on 14 June 2017) Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2694 days ago on 6 July 2017) The RfC, filed at the Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War#RfC on July 6th was agreed to be transferred to the main talk page of the Syrian Civil War article in light of the wide implication of the contested issue in line with a more limited audience of Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War (4 editors participated prior to the decision) and existing consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel. As a result, Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#RfC was initiated on July 9th and so far 12 editors participated.
However, old RfC hadn't been cancelled/procedurally closed to date, and 2 more users decided to vote at the old RfC after July 9th in addition to their voting at new broader RfC (at talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC). Remarkably, one of the editors voted differently at the old and new RfCs. We cannot have two parallel RfC about the exact same topic and potentially different outcome. So far, the main page for topic-wide decisions on the Syrian Civil War arena has been the Syrian Civil War article and so should remain. Therefor i request to close the older RfC procedurally and allow more time for voting on the newer and much wider audience RfC. This request was originally filed on 25 July.GreyShark (dibra) 07:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2698 days ago on 2 July 2017) Please, close this discussion and determine the consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2692 days ago on 8 July 2017). Could somebody close this please? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}--Inform me at my talk if a closure statement is desirable.Winged Blades Godric 10:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Warren National University#RfC: Should we say that Warren National University was a diploma mill? (Initiated 2677 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--They have already arrived at a unanimous consensus.No point of a closure.Winged Blades Godric 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017#RfC: Events in May and June 2017 (Initiated 2700 days ago on 1 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#RfC about Reinstating column with terminal information (Initiated 2691 days ago on 10 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}(consensus reached not to reinstate). --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Category talk:Deaths by type of illness#Why no cardiac? (Initiated 2706 days ago on 25 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--Scarcity of substantial discussion.Winged Blades Godric 11:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess consensus about the merger proposal of Impeachment March into Efforts to impeach Donald Trump or Protests against Donald Trump? (Initiated 2687 days ago on 13 July 2017) Thanks! — JFG talk 23:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin or experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Joseph Stalin#Request for Comment on the use of "Dictator" in the lede (Initiated 2686 days ago on 15 July 2017). Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} (non-admin closure) Result was "keep". Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced uninvolved editor please assess the consensus and close it here? Dschslava Δx parlez moi 02:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Done--Aervanath (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2677 days ago on 24 July 2017) Been relisted thrice, NAC was asked to be reverted. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
A uninvolved editor should close a couple ongoing discussions please. Because it is WP:SNOW Thanks. (Initiated 2668 days ago on 2 August 2017) --209.249.5.130 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fixed parameter for you (i.e. added
type=). --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:James Jamerson#RfC - age of James Jamerson at his death. (Initiated 2707 days ago on 24 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Iran/Archive 18#RfC about the use of "Persia" and "Iran" in historic contexts (Initiated 2707 days ago on 24 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lifta#RfC (Initiated 2696 days ago on 5 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC (Initiated 2692 days ago on 9 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Doctor Who#Request for comments on Doctor Who News as a reliable source (Initiated 2677 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2701 days ago on 30 June 2017) It has a fairly overwhelming majority (3 times as many "opposes" as "supports") and it's becoming a magnet for anon griping about NPOV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)#RfC on scope (Initiated 2726 days ago on 5 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} although I don't expect that result to solve all the problems unfortunately. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017#RfC - London terror attacks (Initiated 2688 days ago on 13 July 2017)? Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 00:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at both RFCs (at Talk:2017#RFCs) Both were initiated: (Initiated 2677 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 00:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Talk:2017 always seems to have several RfCs going at once. I guess that you means the ones for Deborah Watling and Tommy Gemmell, both of which had the
{{rfc}}removed by Legobot in the two hours before you posted this (and which brought the total open down from seven to five). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)- Yep that's why I said both although I probably should've stated the names, I knew no one was going to close this one and thought instead of it sitting there It was best to come here - Ofcourse there's no time limit but I knew someone at somepoint was going to add these 2 to the article and then be reverted "because the RFC was closed" - It's happened plenty of times. –Davey2010Talk 15:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} both. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- My apologies Thryduulf I should've stated the names above instead of essentially assuming everyone's now mind readers so my apologies for the confusement, Thanks for kindly closing all 3 RFCs, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Locomotives and rolling stock of the Victorian Railways, predecessors and successors#Reliability of sources in rolling stock articles (social media etc) (Initiated 2712 days ago on 19 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Because there has been some debate in a involved editor and because there has been disputes as to the consensus, I request an independent admin (or two) to close and evaluate the consensus however it shall be read. I have a personal view but wish for the community's wishes to be accurately rendered. I also understand that it may still be too early to close and render a consensus, in which case I give consent to have the date parameter adjusted for the template. (Initiated 2676 days ago on 25 July 2017) Hasteur (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion started on 25 July, Hasteur. May you change from "
5 July" to "25 July" please? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)- My factual and simple close of a stalled discussion showing 42-12 support was improperly unilaterally overturned claiming unclear consensus possibly in violation of WP:NAC and definitely against the instructions at the top of this page. I request an uninvolved admin review my close and, if they agree, restore the close and the related changes to CSD13. I'm open to tweaks to my proposed G13 wording, but the right of an involved editor to do an NAC close is well established by community decision as reflected in the instructions. The overturn by an Admin claiming not to be acting as an admin is out of line. We have DRV for that. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- @George Ho: I said today's date in the revision where I requested it. You want Kostas20142 who declared July 5th. Hasteur (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Without commenting on the merits (or not) of the previous close, I think this should be left open for a while longer. While the vote numbers are clearly pointing one way, when taken with the context of previous discussion (and more apart from these) on what to do with stale drafts, it is clear that the closure will have to take the wider picture into account. Holding off for another 2 weeks, and having an uninvolved closure won't do any harm here. For reference, I would be happy to close this once discussion has come to a natural close, but as of now I don't think this has quite happened yet. Mdann52 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Echio Mdann52.Winged Blades Godric 03:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Mdann52 and Winged Blades of Godric: I agree that it's probably far too early for this to close, however when we had some disagreement already in the attempted closure of this already, I wanted to get in on record that I want an independent admin (or a few) to close this RFC when the time comes. Hasteur (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)#
- @Hasteur: Completely agree with you here - as an early close has been discussed by some, I just wanted to register my opposition to this being closed "soon", and it wasn't commenting on the merits of the action of bringing it here. Mdann52 (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The RfC template just expired and around a week has gone by without input from new commenters, so I would say the time has now come for this RfC to be closed. A note to potential closers that there are comments in some of the subsections for and against the proposal that did not make it into the main !vote thread, which should definitely be considered in the close. A2soup (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Counting stray votes per A2soup, there have been 8 more Supports and 7 more Opposes since this request to close was created. Added to the 42-12 on Aug 4 gives 50 Supports vs 19 Opposes = 72.5% Support (to my count anyway). Pretty clear consensus for G13 expansion to cover all Drafts space pages unedited in 6 months. User:Mdann52 is an ArbComm clerk that indicted a willingness to close. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by Swarm at 04:07 25 August 2017 Hasteur (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2731 days ago on 31 May 2017) An RfC there has been posted for quite a long time with a few comments. It has expired for twice. Can anybody close it? Ams&CVA (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's an obvious no consensus.No points in closing.Winged Blades Godric 09:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} for posterity. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2702 days ago on 28 June 2017) RFC over. Could someone provide a close? Casprings (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Algiers expedition (1541)#RfC (Initiated 2692 days ago on 9 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Archaeology of Israel#Christianity (Initiated 2689 days ago on 12 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}, but mostly because the end result has been tacitly approved and subsequently the article in question has been modified with no further issues. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Kombucha#Rfc about the format of the page, food or MOS:MED. (Initiated 2698 days ago on 3 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Whataboutism#RfC: Introduction to the subject (Initiated 2680 days ago on 21 July 2017)? Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2680 days ago on 21 July 2017) Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess consensus and provide guidance on closing the debate? Thanks. — JFG talk 16:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Cerebellum. --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2654 days ago on 16 August 2017) Consensus has reached result was No Consensus 38.96.9.224 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Malinaccier--Aervanath (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2724 days ago on 7 June 2017) Can someone close this GAR? -- ForbiddenRocky (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close the discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2688 days ago on 13 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done, withdrawn and stayed.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Godric on Leave, just a reminder to put |done=yes in the initiated template when closing an RfCl :) DrStrauss talk 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- DrStrauss, if you'll take a look at the discussion, it's not yet closed ;) Primefac (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Godric on Leave, just a reminder to put |done=yes in the initiated template when closing an RfCl :) DrStrauss talk 12:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2693 days ago on 7 July 2017). Requesting closure by an uninvolved user. North America1000 00:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2667 days ago on 3 August 2017) Requesting review/closure of this SPI. CU results were posted on 3 August (5 days ago), and since then, 11 new SPA accounts have been created to disrupt the AFD process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RHAPSODY( Annual social of MEDICAL COLLEGE , KOLKATA). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}}, I think. SPI is archived and the AFD is closed. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close the move review please. Thanks. (Initiated 2676 days ago on 25 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by GoldenRing. --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 3216 days ago on 1 February 2016) Requesting closure by an uninvolved user. North America1000 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2657 days ago on 13 August 2017) Consensus has been reached to move the pages. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Identitarian movement#White supremacy (Initiated 2704 days ago on 27 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric:, you still working on this? Primefac (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 00:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity#RfC: Russian interference in Background section (Initiated 2694 days ago on 7 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --slakr\ talk / 00:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:/r/The Donald#RfC on definition in lead sentence (Initiated 2690 days ago on 11 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 01:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Portal talk:Current events#RfC about Current sporting seasons > Football (soccer) 2017 (Initiated 2703 days ago on 28 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 01:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Can you please close the RFC as snow consensus against G14 and A12 --38.96.9.224 (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- The above request is non-neutral, so I'll say this more neutrally to fix this: "May an uninvolved editor close the whole discussion please? Thanks." (Initiated 2683 days ago on 18 July 2017) --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, @Primefac:--Any thoughts about closing this?Godric on Leave (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's about as far away from a snow close as it gets without being an actual tie (it's about 55/45% numerically).
But, I'll take a look at the arguments and see what sticks.Primefac (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's about as far away from a snow close as it gets without being an actual tie (it's about 55/45% numerically).
- Well, @Primefac:--Any thoughts about closing this?Godric on Leave (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}, though obviously not as the requester intended. :P --slakr\ talk / 02:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 3007 days ago on 27 August 2016) A long overdue discussion concerning map colors of Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon in regard to the Middle East conflicts map.GreyShark (dibra) 14:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2662 days ago on 8 August 2017) This hasn't reached 30 days as of this posting, but will in three days. Listing it hear because its a relatively significant proposal so getting it closed in a timely manner is ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. Got archived without closure, though the consensus seems to be against the proposal. --George Ho (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess and close this discussion? Thanks, 153.230.106.79 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}, as I see no need to formally close the thread. Primefac (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2642 days ago on 28 August 2017) Can someone delete this page so the page Just Like Fire can be moved to it, as the lowercase title is correct? CB19 (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Cloverboy19:
Not done Please add {{db-move|Just Like Fire}}to Just like Fire. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC) - {{done}} many days ago by RHaworth. Samsara 21:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 14#Category:Television programming by language
(Initiated 2837 days ago on 14 February 2017) Stale discussion, no contributions after early April. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2636 days ago on 2 September 2017) Can be closed early by uninvolved admin due to agreement between nominator and creator for deletion as speedy Agathoclea (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC: Nationality/citizenship (Initiated 2667 days ago on 3 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2673 days ago on 28 July 2017) Would an experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Ned Kelly#RfC about adding photo's in the armour section Thank you David.moreno72 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus to add one of the two images. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Singers genres in lead sentence (Initiated 2703 days ago on 28 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{resolved}} This has long since ceased to be productive. Due to the contentious nature of the discussion, I request that three uninvolved admins publish a joint closing statement. I have been involved, but at this point, I no longer have an opinion on the outcome. I just want to see closure so we can all move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I would also like to see closure for this discussion, but may have been slightly involved. A question: by three, do you include yourself? Regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, I should not be one of the three. My prior involvement with this debate disqualifies me. But, I will take this opportunity to ping all the other admins reading this and ask them to consider stepping up. The debate is still simmering. It's not really even a debate any more, it's just the three main players continuing to snipe at each other. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I would also like to see closure for this discussion, but may have been slightly involved. A question: by three, do you include yourself? Regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I predict no Administrator will close this and instead will roll off the page unless the enablers of the disruptive action continue to make patently false objections and arguments/proposals that would require jettisoning a great swath of current operating procedure. In short I look forward to an uninvolved user to start Arbitration proceedings or people let this roll off into archives so that it can be pointed at in 6 months as justification for AN not being able to resolve this issue. Hasteur (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I appear to have a very similar problem to this editor which has been going on even longer and would have been easily rectified by viewing provided diffs, new evidence, and new WP policy of AUG2017 today in DRV. In fact, User:RoySmith purposefully ignored my concerns closing the request and each policy mentioned would have been highly relevant to this discussion now. (in fairness to Roy I'm new to this process and it was sort of disorganized). I wish he could have understood the similarities in my case with this one. My drafts were in already in user space and there was no suggestion what-so-ever to compromise with the draft disrupting editor who nominated my draft as stale only 1.5 hours after my last edit. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- User:Johnvr4 your issue has nothing to do with the Taku problem and is nothing like it. I don't think we need a close now. All the abandoned drafts have been run through G13 and refunded (or the CSD tag removed) or have been theough MfD. The admin guidelines on CSD G13 are pretty clear that the second refund is questionable amd the third request unlikely to be granted. I don't expect there wil be much effort on these pages so will G13 them in 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Here is my take: it's related in a tangential sense that this is really a policy-question as opposed to a behavior-question and thus the AN is not a best venue for the discussion. I suspect that's one of the reasons the admits have difficulty closing the thread. I'm not starting an RfC and such since that will be interpreted as a disruption by the other side... -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not supposed to be a situation with two sides. I think the thread is closed now. Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Here is my take: it's related in a tangential sense that this is really a policy-question as opposed to a behavior-question and thus the AN is not a best venue for the discussion. I suspect that's one of the reasons the admits have difficulty closing the thread. I'm not starting an RfC and such since that will be interpreted as a disruption by the other side... -- Taku (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Primefac. --George Ho (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor determine the consensus at this RfC? (Initiated 2655 days ago on 15 August 2017) THE DIAZ talk • contribs 05:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor take a look at Talk:British Sri Lankans#Proposed merge with British Sri Lankan Tamil? There was a reasonable amount of discussion, but most of it concerned a now-blocked editor, who created the page that the merge proposal concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--@Cordless Larry:--Discussion is too scarce.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm a bit rusty with proposals for mergers, Godric on Leave. Is there a formal relisting process, or a way to encourage more input? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry:--You could attribute the same rustiness to me too! But, as far as my knowledge goes, relists don't happen in mergers etc. and it's just better to advertise the disc. at rel. noticeboards, projects, t/p of top contributors without violating WP:CANVASS.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks - have done. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Cordless Larry:--You could attribute the same rustiness to me too! But, as far as my knowledge goes, relists don't happen in mergers etc. and it's just better to advertise the disc. at rel. noticeboards, projects, t/p of top contributors without violating WP:CANVASS.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2652 days ago on 18 August 2017) --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Working--Winged Blades Godric 09:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Godric. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Guideline change proposal that has gone nowhere but an ever-growing morass of argument about side topics, and circular ones about the original topic. There's clearly no consensus, nor could one conceivably emerge from this, so it should just be closed as unproductive (I would NAC close it myself, but commented in it). (Initiated 2656 days ago on 14 August 2017) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}--This has already ceased for good and has now gave way to a RFC on the issue.Happy consensus-building!
.Winged Blades Godric 07:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The process at DR has stalled without prospect of resolution, with the moderator having recused themself as a result of representations by the OP at this page. The matter has been extensively discussed and reasonably notified, as evidenced in the thread. I submit that the matter has been sufficiently debated to determine a consensus but the matter requires an independent adjudication to make a close. It is my belief that to protract this matter further would cause unnecessary disruption without any commensurate benefit in preserving natural justice. This course has been suggested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#USS John S. McCain (DDG-56). Accordingly, I request that an uninvolved editor provide a close wrt the substantive issue - whether it is appropriate to mention in a ship's article the response of a state (the PRC) to FONOPS. I am notifying this request at DR. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Working--In my powers as a DRN volunteer and per Robert's proposal of shifting volunteer-responsibility, I could technically close this or continue the discussion.Just give me some time to go through the entire content etc..Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Discussions at DRN do not normally get formal closure here. However, I would suggest that this be treated as a request for administrative attention because one of the editors doesn't like the consensus that has been reached. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Winged Blades of Godric and @Robert McClenon, this discussion is continuing at Talk:USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and the admin, Buckshot06 has taken an interest in resolving the matter. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} in my capacity as a DRN volunteer.Some t/p disc. seems to be goingNo comments/actions about them.Winged Blades Godric 07:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17)#RfC Battle of Mosul end date (Initiated 2677 days ago on 24 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--Typical scarce disc. and a no consensus.A relist can be sought.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2617 days ago on 22 September 2017) — Page creator has voted to delete; redirect now qualifies for G7 speedy deletion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Zoë Quinn#Request for Comment: Preferred Gender Pronouns to be used in the article (Initiated 2623 days ago on 16 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. Closed as feminine pronouns. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RFC: New subsection under "Not a Newspaper" about commentary] (Initiated 2645 days ago on 25 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. Closed as no consensus for inclusion with detailed analysis. Snuge purveyor (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2662 days ago on 8 August 2017) Restoring this from archives as it has been unarchived and someone has requested a formal closure of it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Closed as unsuccessful. Biblio (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence (Initiated 2655 days ago on 15 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban for TakuyaMurata (Initiated 2622 days ago on 17 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2670 days ago on 31 July 2017) George Ho (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 23:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess and close this discussion? It has been going on for months and was apparently marred by some canvassing [3]. The discussion has also hit a standstill, and an administrator has just indicated that there is no clear denouement [4]. Thanks. (Initiated 2870 days ago on 12 January 2017) Soupforone (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 23:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox philosopher#Request for comment (Initiated 2648 days ago on 22 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Badme#RfC for Badme location (Initiated 2708 days ago on 23 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Right of return#RfC: Domestic immigration laws (Initiated 2650 days ago on 20 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 111#RfC: Proposal for WP:NFOOTY guideline (Initiated 2664 days ago on 6 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --slakr\ talk / 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:0.999.../Archive 19#Request for comment: Which version neutrally summarizes the cited sources with appropriate weight? (Initiated 2680 days ago on 21 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 01:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures (Initiated 2684 days ago on 17 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --slakr\ talk / 02:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 141#RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience" (Initiated 2660 days ago on 10 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Harry Lauder#RfC on infobox? (Initiated 2699 days ago on 2 July 2017)? Thank you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 04:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo (Initiated 2624 days ago on 15 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2676 days ago on 25 July 2017) WP:FORUMSHOP – started less than 24 hours after opening discussion on article talk page. User who started discussion has not shown good-faith effort to build consensus on the article talk page (Talk:Linda Sarsour#Criticism section), or to understand the relevant parts of WP:BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)
On hold Discussion has been archived. Waiting for initiated date as well. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC) - (non-admin closure) {{Not done}} This discussion requires no closure. It's been archived, the OP has left the project, and the related talkpage discussion is now two archives back. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Request an uninvolved editor to close this discussion, having 30 days passed and no recent discussion. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved editor to look at this discussion involving a dispute of whether a particular song should be classified as a single. A user initiated a RfC on September 8th, but withdrew it on September 11th; the user then initiated a WP:3O, which was responded to (Although recent discussion has been under the RfC heading, the official RfC request was withdrawn). (I would close this myself, but I commented on the request, though I didn't opine one way or the other.) At the moment, it appears that there is currently only one user holding out; I believe it would be helpful for the discussion to be formally closed to keep it from dragging on unnecessarily. (Initiated 2662 days ago on 8 August 2017) 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure--The entire sequence of events makes a closure difficult.Winged Blades Godric 07:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. A formal closure may not have been the most proper action, but the outcome was clear-cut and the closure should assist in preventing future disruption. Ways forward are identified. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion, (Initiated 2651 days ago on 19 August 2017)? Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 01:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2646 days ago on 24 August 2017) A recent deletion nomination for the article Alt-left was closed as no consensus. During the discussions a consensus of editors was formed to begin a merge discussion if the AFD concluded as "No consensus", which it did. Because of the controversial nature of both the article and the dispute, a request is being made for an admin to close this discussion when the duration of the proposal has ended. The rationale of the proposal is strictly the formed consensus and is why the question is left as a simple question to merge or not (there is no policy or guideline to adhere to that requires a fuller, or more detailed rationale). There is no 30 day discussion period required and may be closed when a consensus has been reached.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2637 days ago on 2 September 2017) — already relisted, time to close this. Frietjes (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Primefac. Nihlus 19:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2624 days ago on 15 September 2017) — open for over two weeks. Frietjes (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Primefac. Nihlus 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
An article is currently under full protection due to the edit war that spawned this discussion. I suspect it would be helpful to give this some official closure. Many thanks. Samsara 12:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RfC: Should usage of vertical and horizontal templates fall within WP:CITEVAR (Initiated 2702 days ago on 29 June 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Working Winged Blades Godric 10:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done Ncfriend (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Removed Done tag. I have commented here. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Nihlus 08:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2630 days ago on 9 September 2017) Second trainwreck of a pseudo-RfC back-to-back on the same day and page by same author. Does not ask a clear question, consists of one-sided PoV pushing (in a WP:NOT#ADVOCACY / WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS vein). This should be shut down like the last one. If there's an issue to RfC here, it should be posed by a neutral third party who's actually read WP:RFC. (Initiated 2632 days ago on 7 September 2017) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- First trainwreck, I think. I already nullified the second one, which was subsequently removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the first trainwreck. My intention was to open a policy-inquiry-commentary (not any POV - I had a hard time deciding which policy to forward for the RfC, thus my citing them all, which may come across as that), but it became a content-dispute. There are problems with that article, so if you're going to close the RfC, please preserve its discussion if you can. Thank you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. Article needs work, but topic is legit. Snuge purveyor (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I'm the author of the first trainwreck. My intention was to open a policy-inquiry-commentary (not any POV - I had a hard time deciding which policy to forward for the RfC, thus my citing them all, which may come across as that), but it became a content-dispute. There are problems with that article, so if you're going to close the RfC, please preserve its discussion if you can. Thank you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Lindy West#RFC on the inclusion of Women's Media Center Award on Lindy West page (Initiated 2667 days ago on 3 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Trump campaign–Russian meeting#RfC: Should the article include material about the Senate Judiciary Committee investigation of Fusion GPS cofounder Glenn Simpson? (Initiated 2669 days ago on 1 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Closed by Tazerdadog on 27 September 2017. --GRuban (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2641 days ago on 29 August 2017) Conversation has died down. If someone could close this when the time comes, it would be appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Primefac. Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mansplaining#RfC about criticism in the lead (Initiated 2638 days ago on 1 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}} Both proposed wordings were opposed. Criticism section needs a rewrite first. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Need an editor to access merger proposal. Thank you. Anniethiessen (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Anniethiessen: {{not done}} This was never a WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2686 days ago on 15 July 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2686 days ago on 15 July 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Steel1943. -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I have closed this discussion (Initiated 2609 days ago on 30 September 2017) for the reason that the instigator posed an invalid question easily failing to meet the stated WP:RFC guidelines. They also did not follow any reasonable attempt to work out the dispute beforehand, and used WP:Retired (then negating it) even before the Rfc was completed. I.e.[5] Please confirm this particular action is valid. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- I request some assistence with this WP:RFC as my closure has been reverted by User:VQuakr here[6] claiming "Rv out of process closure." My response to this is here.[7] & [8]. Thanking for any assistance. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) {{Not done}}. Tigraan opened a new, better-formulated RfC on the same topic on 11 October. Snuge purveyor (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Alternative for Germany#RfC re German nationalism or nationalism (Initiated 2630 days ago on 9 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. Clear consensus for "German nationalism". Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Donald Trump's Real Estate Tycoon#Mentioning the fact that Trump is a future US president (Initiated 2643 days ago on 27 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2633 days ago on 6 September 2017) — open for over three weeks. Frietjes (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted today by Godric on Leave. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Godric on Leave. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Uma Thurman#Request for comment (Initiated 2636 days ago on 3 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure) {{Done}}. Closed as: include a rewritten version of the paragraph in question. Snuge purveyor (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC #2 (Initiated 2649 days ago on 21 August 2017)? Please consider the earlier discussions Talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War#RfC and Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 45#RfC in your close. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Seraphim System. --George Ho (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Nazism sidebar#RfC about including books in the "Racial ideology" section (Initiated 2639 days ago on 31 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2639 days ago on 31 August 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
A discussion about whether Days of the Year pages are exempt from needing references has gone stale. Discussion (Initiated 2685 days ago on 16 July 2017) but RFC tag not applied until RFC properly (Initiated 2627 days ago on 12 September 2017). Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
{{Done}} agtx 15:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close a couple ongoing discussions please. Thanks. (Initiated 2660 days ago on 10 August 2017) --George Ho (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 August has been dormant for more than one week. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have closed one of these. One is left to close. bd2412 T 19:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}--The lone remaining discussion has been closed by me.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2599 days ago on 10 October 2017) Could somebody uninvolved close this discussion, please? Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}},by Toddst1. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive 3#RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page (Initiated 2661 days ago on 9 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} with a note and a link on the current talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2620 days ago on 19 September 2017) Assessment needed on whether information not provided in source material may be included in the Trump presidency timeline. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} as "exclude" --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox writer#Convert to wrapper (Initiated 2635 days ago on 4 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 23:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#RfC: Should the article include material about Felix Sater's communication with Vladimir Putin's aid and related emails to Trump’s lawyer? (Initiated 2639 days ago on 31 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine)#Request for Comment on "the" (Initiated 2639 days ago on 31 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed as no consensus.- MrX 23:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Moors#RfC on Lead (Initiated 2638 days ago on 1 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}. Closed as consensus for version #2.- MrX 23:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor please assess the discussion at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials#RFC: Graph of Monument Construction? Thank you. (Initiated 2627 days ago on 12 September 2017) Magnolia677 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Liberty University people#RfC: Should people who receive an honorary degree be included in this article? (Initiated 2624 days ago on 15 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Algerian War#RfC about the result parameter in the Infobox (Initiated 2650 days ago on 20 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2647 days ago on 23 August 2017) See also Lists of ancient doctors directly below it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Plimpton 322/Archive 1#Request for comment (Initiated 2631 days ago on 8 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as consensus to omit reporting the article.- MrX 12:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#RfC regarding WP:RAPID (Initiated 2632 days ago on 7 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} - Closed as no consensus.- MrX 18:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: Add {{find sources}} to this template (Initiated 2619 days ago on 20 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Godric on Leave (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Recent years#RFC: Do we need to differentiate between "recent years" and other years?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Recent years#RFC: Do we need to differentiate between "recent years" and other years? The discussion is going nowhere at this point an a fairly clear consensus appears to have developed. (Initiated 2593 days ago on 16 October 2017)? Thanks, Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}--I would prefer to stay it open, at least for the minimum stipulated time.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 05:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2609 days ago on 30 September 2017) Unclear consensus, differing policy interpretations. GMGtalk 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2647 days ago on 23 August 2017) Please can someone come to MfD and put this out of its misery. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- This has already been relisted once and discussion has died down quite extensively. Draft page's author has been topic banned and even during the time of the entire MFD, we have zero improvements anywhere. Please close this now so that we can move forward. Hasteur (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2608 days ago on 1 October 2017) Seems to be a consensus to disambiguate. Can someone come and make the closure? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}.Will dis-ambiguate, once I get some time.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2608 days ago on 1 October 2017) Already been relisted once and discussion has died since. There appears to be a consensus to keep the redirect. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}.But diferent result.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2607 days ago on 2 October 2017) Please can someone neutral have a look at this. It has been closed four times by the same person, most recently yesterday and today, but reverted each time due to neutrality issues. It needs someone completely uninvolved to resolve it. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_this.3F. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Doing... Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 08:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/2017 Advisory RFC (Initiated 2618 days ago on 21 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Do we even need a close on this, Cunard? This RfC is advisory for the Arbitration Committee, so they'll have to sort through the arguments for and against if they wish to be "advised". There's no "outcome" to such an RfC. ~ Rob13Talk 09:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Per this, Arbcom will formally take the RFC content into consideration when the ban appeal proceeds. Just flagging that as it seems relevant to the wording of any close. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{close}} Paul August ☎ 21:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2591 days ago on 18 October 2017) Not a month old yet, but unanimously supported and uncontroversial change. Jc86035 (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} As you wish:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2584 days ago on 25 October 2017) A particularly egregious article. If it is to be deleted, it should be done as soon as possible. The discussion has been open for seven days and there is a clear consensus. Scolaire (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion (Initiated 2784 days ago on 7 April 2017), with latest comment added in May 2017. Seems like sufficient voting is done, but to be concluded by a neutral party.GreyShark (dibra) 08:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Needs an uninvolved editor (or two) to close the discussion. (Initiated 2614 days ago on 25 September 2017) --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}Hmm...Trends are pretty clear and a closure is most likely to not serve any purpose.Somewhere, a vote-count per proposal could be maintained:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2693 days ago on 8 July 2017)Discussion has finally died down on this rather contentious debate. Needs a closure and a verdict -Force Radical (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}-To say in your words, verdict given but a detailed rationale is to be posted very soon.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion here has stopped, so could someone please close the discussion? ~ Rob13Talk 15:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Closed Paul August ☎ 21:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Marking as {{done}} by Oshwah. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2616 days ago on 22 September 2017) Talk:Suzuki Hayabusa#RfC about speed restriction beginning with 2000 or 2001 model year is ready to close. Please determine conesnsus. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:SNOWBALL support, from the first day, and hasn't changed since then. I say that as someone who opposed. This one really is open and shut, though exactly what it's in favor of is less clear, as the RfC question is vague/general, not about specific wording. (Initiated 2620 days ago on 19 September 2017). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #1 was closed.
Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2 still needs to be closed. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Nihlus 00:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Pride (2014 film)#RfC about Historical accuracy section (Initiated 2661 days ago on 9 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#RfC: Band member timelines (Initiated 2678 days ago on 23 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2605 days ago on 4 October 2017) — xaosflux Talk 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Yep, already asked it at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Closing this.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Mz7 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2661 days ago on 9 August 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Somebody with a mop bring it out of it's misery.Or do a 5th relist:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 09:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} - closed as retarget.--Aervanath (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2634 days ago on 5 September 2017) Recently expired. Discussion includes move suggestions as well, but moves are handled via WP:Requested move. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} I'm afraid I read the discussion as clearly in favor of a rename; you are quite right that could be done via wp:requested move, but wp:buro. Even if there is a better potential name, I'm guessing even this temporary disambiguation is at least some improvement. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#RfC: Band member timelines (Initiated 2678 days ago on 23 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Laffer curve#Lead: "Generally, empirical studies" show that we are on left side of Laffer curve
This discussion has gone on now since mid-August and should be closed by a neutral party. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC) (Initiated 2649 days ago on 21 August 2017)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)/Archive 1#RfC on anti-Semitic and alt-right comparisons (Initiated 2613 days ago on 26 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Early review requested: RfC initiator contacted me on my TP to close this, as they wish to withdraw that RfC which a sizable majority opposes. However, there is some discussion about alternatives (see in particular K.e.coffman's suggestion and the replies), so it is not obvious that it can be withdrawn. I believe, but am not sure, that it qualifies for a speedy close, and I think it is improper for me to close it (per the spirit of CANVASS, since the RfC initiator contacted me directly, I am somewhat involved even if I offered no view on the RfC). If someone could look at it and either close it early or leave a note saying why it should not be closed early, it would be great. (Initiated 2576 days ago on 2 November 2017) TigraanClick here to contact me 12:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Tigraan:--Ask Gilmore to pull it off by removing the RFC tag.He's the best person to do it.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 03:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Godric on Leave: well, my point was precisely to avoid that someone involved close the thing. But I am going to assume you looked at it, saw nothing sketchy with closing, and close it myself. TigraanClick here to contact me 08:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please disposition Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2017_November#2017_Lower_Manhattan_attack, which has now been open for more than one week. Users have indicated that they would like this to be dispositioned soon.(Initiated 2575 days ago on 2 November 2017) --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A long overdue discussion on a sensitive topic, which should be closed by a neutral party. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 11:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just in case: (Initiated 3423 days ago on 9 July 2015). --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Working ~Awilley (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Pinged Awilley; still working, hopefully will close soon. --GRuban (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Sorry about the delay. ~Awilley (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pinged Awilley; still working, hopefully will close soon. --GRuban (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bee Gees#RfC Removing British from everything Gibb (Initiated 2640 days ago on 30 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed. I don't see a consensus one way or the other, so we retain the status quo. — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Should the Historicity of Jesus article imply that there are contemporaneous accounts of the life of Jesus? (Initiated 2629 days ago on 10 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed. — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Old Norse religion#Citation System (Initiated 2619 days ago on 20 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2609 days ago on 30 September 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by User:BDD at 21:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC). Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber/Archive 3#RfC: Description of Stefan Molyneux in article (Initiated 2652 days ago on 18 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Closed. Consensus is "No" on the main question. --Jayron32 12:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Adding tag so ClueBot will archive since it hasn't for some reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2614 days ago on 25 September 2017) In one way or another the overall discussion has been open since 6 September 2017 (Talk:Hentai#Wikipedia is not censored... but). Since then the RfC has gone wildly off topic with an unclear discussion focus. I am suggesting a close as this is a mess. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I would hope I dont have to point this out to anyone uninvolved in this dispute, but this RfC obviously hasn't reached anywhere near its expiry date and shouldn't be closed. I posted an RfC because I wanted outside opinion on this issue. That there was an earlier discussion between the same few usual suspects on an article is neither here nor there, because the point was to get some fresh opinions in. This is the reason RfCs exist in the first place, and I would hope this would be self evident to an editor as experienced and established as Knowledgekid. :) Brustopher (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Well requesting a closure now isnt going to hurt as there havent been any "fresh" opinions. The latest replies are going into Wikiprojects, and the like. Im not even sure what we are discussing anymore as things are now at status quo with no infobox at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2572 days ago on 6 November 2017) A solid consensus has formed around an alternative to deletion. Contributors on both sides are calling for a close. Discussion has stopped, and there has been no new contributor for four days. Scolaire (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Vaccine#Proposed merge with Vaccination (Initiated 2671 days ago on 30 July 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Already done Ncfriend (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Removed Already done tag. I have commented here. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}, but what a train wreck. There was no consensus for the merge, but the merge was done anyway, and 2 months have passed since, so undoing the merge is going to be an effort. I'll do it if no one else steps up, but this isn't really my area, so anyone who really does know about medicine or its history and wants to put in the work, please say so on the article talk page, or I might make bit of a mess. --GRuban (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- Removed Already done tag. I have commented here. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David Ferrie#RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by Victor Marchetti (Initiated 2630 days ago on 9 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox television channel#RfC about sister channels (Initiated 2666 days ago on 4 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --GRuban (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Bipolar disorder#Rfc Request for comment on bipolar disorder causes (Initiated 2607 days ago on 2 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
A quick glance at the lower end of the discussion shows that the issue has been resolved and all three involved editors have agreed on a stable version. In order to prevent other editors wondering what's going on can it be closed?
(Initiated 2590 days ago on 19 October 2017) Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Expired RfC about the wording of the lead. Not much discussion going on right now. (Initiated 2598 days ago on 11 October 2017) TigraanClick here to contact me 13:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. — Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Please disposition Talk:2017_Lower_Manhattan_attack#Requested_move_9_November_2017. I cannot close this due to WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Expired RfC. Consensus seems pretty clear, but I anticipate that one contributor in particular will fail to get the point. A closing summary world be helpful. (Initiated 2594 days ago on 15 October 2017) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Cunard (diff). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally (Initiated 2604 days ago on 5 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate request. See above.—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)- Thank you for the correction. I meant to remove the "Request for comment: San Bernardino attack" close request instead of the "Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally" close request when I saw that the former was on WP:ANRFC already. I've fixed the link from Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: San Bernardino attack to Talk:Linda Sarsour#Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a close is necessary, since that request has already been withdrawn (diff). It should be archived shortly by bot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. Yes, the RfC has been resolved. I have closed it and summarized the consensus and outcome. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure a close is necessary, since that request has already been withdrawn (diff). It should be archived shortly by bot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the correction. I meant to remove the "Request for comment: San Bernardino attack" close request instead of the "Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally" close request when I saw that the former was on WP:ANRFC already. I've fixed the link from Talk:Linda Sarsour#Request for comment: San Bernardino attack to Talk:Linda Sarsour#Yiannopoulos and Geller at rally. Cunard (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2611 days ago on 27 September 2017) RFC expired with unclear consensus. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hobit (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC) {{done}} Closed. There is a box-in-a-box error I can't figure out so the formatting is off. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- There was an unmatched
{{hidden end}}template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- There was an unmatched
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Birth date and age#RfC about whether there should be an infant month-day and super year-day parameter (Initiated 2596 days ago on 13 October 2017)? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 19:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted: lots of suggestions, none in agreement. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Snuge purveyor: Relist has expired. It seems like there is a consensus that, while there should be no new parameters, that the proposed functions should be performed automatically (without the need for parameters).--Nevé–selbert 17:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --Brustopher (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2583 days ago on 26 October 2017) Largely clear consensus; Legobot has removed the RfC template. Jc86035 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
{{done}} ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2563 days ago on 15 November 2017) -- Aunva6talk - contribs 04:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} - closed as keep by Oshwah (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables (Initiated 2651 days ago on 19 August 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Consensus is rough on this discussion that involves some of Wikipedia's core policies. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2618 days ago on 21 September 2017) Assessment required on the views expressed on the legitimacy of an entry concerning reportage on the Trump presidency. Many thanks. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2617 days ago on 22 September 2017) Assessment needed on views concerning the inclusion of a list of diners in the Trump presidency timeline. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2579 days ago on 30 October 2017) To put it bluntly, this RfC is flawed at best. The OP came to the talk page 10 days ago asking where content should be placed and when told that it isn't appropriate he wasn't heard from until today. It appears he has just added an RfC tag to his response expecting that was sufficient to create an RfC, which it isn't. Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, the RfC statement should be neutral and brief. It is neither neither neutral nor brief and lacks focus. The OP hasn't really explained what he expects from participants so I don't see any useful outcome from the RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} It looks like the RFC template has already been removed and with a general consensus there isn't much more to do. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2644 days ago on 26 August 2017) The RfC expired before closure. I have reopened it and request closure. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- James J. Lambden, it's natural for RfCs to expire before a close. They are supposed to run their course and then be closed (usually anyway). Re-opening them with a fresh time stamp causes the RfC to start all over again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}; technically ended up at Talk:Google's_Ideological_Echo_Chamber/Archive_4#RfC:_Blind_poll --slakr\ talk / 06:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2616 days ago on 23 September 2017) Assessment needed on views concerning whether or not only the specific actions and statements of the Trump presidency may be included on the presidency timeline. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 07:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2620 days ago on 19 September 2017) Assessment needed on views concerning whether or not information is eligible for exclusion from the Trump presidency timeline for the given reason that the particular information is also included on other pages. Thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 07:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RFC:Wikipedia Is Not a Laboratory (Initiated 2589 days ago on 20 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} The proposal has been withdrawn and relaunched. Sunrise (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#Should we mention previous Democratic opposition to Comey? and Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#RFC about opposition to Comey prior to dismissal
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#Should we mention previous Democratic opposition to Comey? (Initiated 2634 days ago on 5 September 2017) and Talk:Dismissal of James Comey#RFC about opposition to Comey prior to dismissal (Initiated 2623 days ago on 16 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 09:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#RfC: Replace categories of poly/diatomic nonmetal with less active/active nonmetal (Initiated 2630 days ago on 9 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2616 days ago on 22 September 2017) The bot is trying to close the door so this one must be about done. Please assess consensus and close Talk:Ducati Monster#RfC on calling the Ducati Monster a naked, standard or muscle bike. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Bratland: Legobot is not "trying to close the door", it is removing the
{{rfc}}template because more than thirty days have elapsed since you started the RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)- OK. Either way. It's about time it was closed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 03:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 8#Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor
(Initiated 2601 days ago on 8 October 2017) One of the discussants specifically suggests an outside admin (who is not regularly at CfD) to close this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2569 days ago on 9 November 2017) This was relisted on 18 November 2017. Since then a clear consensus has emerged. Discussion has degenerated into prolonged bickering that threatens to boil over. Scolaire (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed by Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017) related to 8 October discussion on top of this section and related to the three discussions below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017) related to 8 October discussion on top and related to discussions immediately above and 2 below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017) related to 8 October discussion on top and related to both discussions immediately above and one below. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017) related to 8 October discussion on top and related to three discussions immediately above. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE discussion/survey close request
(Initiated 2754 days ago on 8 May 2017) A long discussion has accompanied a slow-motion revert war over the inclusion of a journalist's cited views, which may be UNDUE. The talk thread is at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 9#Dan Goodin wrote... UNDUE and resumed here Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections/Archive 11#Goodin redux. Could an Admin please review and close these discussions so as to settle whether there is consensus to include the comments of Mr. Goodin in the article? Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 00:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandstein (talk • contribs) 09:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2621 days ago on 17 September 2017) This discussion has been active for just over a week, although given the amount of feedback I don't feel it's necessary to let the whole thing drag out. It seems like there is a growing consensus in favour of going by a case-by-case basis regarding whether to refer to BLP politicians as statesman. There also seems to be some agreement that the term should (if used) be backed up by reliable sources, preferably inline citations. Would an admin please review the discussion and gauge the consensus? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 15:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Sandstein 09:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not closed, Sandstein. George Ho (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Odd. My edit seems to not have been saved. It's closed now. Sandstein 11:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not closed, Sandstein. George Ho (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2607 days ago on 2 October 2017) Contentious issue requires close by uninvolved editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:NOTMEMORIAL and victim lists in tragedy articles (Initiated 2602 days ago on 7 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2584 days ago on 25 October 2017) Please disposition Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Request_for_comment_on_"Top_Down_Approach_to_Notability". I cannot close this due to WP:INVOLVED. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2574 days ago on 4 November 2017) This proposed merge has consensus, but the discussion has yet to be closed. I'm requesting that the appropriate actions, including closing and merging the content, takes place. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2633 days ago on 6 September 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Lead wording and links. Thanks, Tvx1 12:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Is anyone going to take a look at this?Tvx1 18:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2598 days ago on 11 October 2017) Since new replies have long-since stopped, could an experienced editor please read through the pertinent arguments and close Talk:T-Mobile Arena#RFC: Las Vegas or Paradise, Nevada (Initiated 2598 days ago on 11 October 2017)? Note that the discussion actually started just above at the Talk:T-Mobile Arena#Location heading and continued at the formal RFC. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2608 days ago on 1 October 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed by Fish and karate (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2595 days ago on 14 October 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed. fish&karate 12:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Bukhara#Russian name? (Initiated 2604 days ago on 5 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 08:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Video game reviews#Adding OpenCritic as a review aggregator (Initiated 2815 days ago on 8 March 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 07:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:University of Notre Dame#RFC: Use of the university seal (Initiated 2628 days ago on 11 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --slakr\ talk / 07:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2583 days ago on 26 October 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by someone else --slakr\ talk / 07:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2722 days ago on 9 June 2017) Where do we stand on accepting or rejecting bach-cantatas.com as a source for Wikipedia content? . --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 07:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor (or two if necessary) should close this discussion. (Initiated 2574 days ago on 4 November 2017) George Ho (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Looking:)Winged Blades Godric 14:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Evolutionary psychology#Inclusion of Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon (Initiated 2575 days ago on 3 November 2017)? Thanks, --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Not done}}Nothing to assess.And t/p discussions are rarely closed except in RFCs or multi-party discussion.Winged Blades Godric 13:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor is needed to close the discussion, which has grown stale. (Initiated 2559 days ago on 19 November 2017) George Ho (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalan Republic (2017) (3rd nomination). George Ho (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
An RfC on the appropriate default units of measurement for a battle in the First World War. Most substantive discussion ended quickly and subsequent commentary was mainly acrimonious in nature. Has been stalled for more than two weeks, with no new additions. (Initiated 2596 days ago on 13 October 2017) LargelyRecyclable (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Already done}} by Cunard. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2590 days ago on 19 October 2017)
- Main discussion has reached it's natural conclusion, no substantive comments have been made in almost 2 weeks. --Jayron32 12:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Nyttend, for his opinions, since he relisted the entire discussion.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 07:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Just making a note that there are additional calls to close. It has been ANOTHER 2 weeks, and there still has been no substantive discussion on the topic at hand; only occasional comments that the discussion has ended and needs resolution from an uninvolved admin. --Jayron32 14:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that Legobot has already removed the RfC template, so I think it should be time to properly close the discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- Just making a note that there are additional calls to close. It has been ANOTHER 2 weeks, and there still has been no substantive discussion on the topic at hand; only occasional comments that the discussion has ended and needs resolution from an uninvolved admin. --Jayron32 14:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm going to work on closing this. @Primefac, Winged Blades of Godric, Slakr, and Ymblanter: Any of you want to join in? I would like to have multiple people to close this with given its size. Thanks. Nihlus 00:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- You can re-request a multi-editor closure at plain, regular WP:AN if you wish, Nihlus. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Nihlus:, I would like to, but the coming week is very difficult for me in terms of the time, so I will skip this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thinking.Likely to not participate but not sure:)Winged Blades Godric 14:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- And given how controversial- not to say acrimonious- the topic and its debate have been, can we assume multiple administrator involvement in the close too, please. SerialNumber54129 15:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- I haven't extensively reviewed it (I more haunt the stuff that turns red on here, and it looks like there are people already willing to help out on this one), but at first glance it looks like there's probably not consensus in favor of the proposal. Might need to review the numbers (admittedly vote-y, but sorta necessary on big ones like this), but it also doesn't look like there's clear consensus against it, either (which means there's at least a significant sentiment of imperfection), so it looks like it's more down to summarizing the main points everyone made for/against and possibly pointing them in the direction of possibilities for future RFCs to address whatever their main concerns have been. Incidentally, it does seem a bit weird to me that this is kind of like an XfD of sorts, yet there doesn't seem to be any sort of XfD-like header on the pages in question, which might have skewed the results(?). Probably not that huge of a deal given the volume of input (besides, it looks to have been on CENT as of at least this revision) but it still seems somewhat odd to me given the usual way proposed things are tagged. *shrug* anyway... :P --slakr\ talk / 02:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Slakr: Actually in terms of vote count, it was around 2-to-1 for opposing vs supporting closure. In addition, early on in the discussion, all the reference desks had a red notice on top informing users about the discussion (which is actually how I became aware of it), but they were removed around the time discussion stagnated (so maybe a few weeks in). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
{{Done}} I went ahead & closed it, per the suggested outcome I had made a few weeks ago. While I likely made a mistake somewhere in doing that, the discussion is in a terminal coma & clearly needed to be put out of its misery. FWIW, I expect the subject of closing the Reference Desks to be raised again, & my closing should not be interpreted as preventing that. -- llywrch (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Sven Hassel#RfC on the use of primary sources (Initiated 2595 days ago on 14 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} -- llywrch (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2596 days ago on 12 October 2017) Getting on for a month old, and there hasn't been any new discussion for a couple of weeks. — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor asses the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#RfC: UK railway station disambiguation?--Cúchullain t/c 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus for Option D: Use Xxx railway station (Location) for all stations. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Expired RfC. Special attention may be needed on the issue of "sourced/verifiable" vs. "significant part of reliable source coverage". (Initiated 2593 days ago on 16 October 2017) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi#Request for comment: Should ethnicity of al-Khwarizmi appear in the lead? (Initiated 2595 days ago on 14 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
An uninvolved editor should close this discussion please. Thanks. (Initiated 2579 days ago on 30 October 2017) George Ho (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. Withdrawing request as the article was merged into Catalan declaration of independence. George Ho (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS (Initiated 2614 days ago on 25 September 2017). I agree with George Ho at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 24#Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Straw poll on the current view of WP:NOT#NEWS that a close would be useful to summarize how the community views WP:NOTNEWS. Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} as best as I could. :P --slakr\ talk / 13:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#RfC Should articles say elections are decided based on preliminary returns? (Initiated 2569 days ago on 9 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Winged Blades of Godric. Sunrise (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Antisemitism in the United Kingdom#Request for comment (Initiated 2566 days ago on 12 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 196#RfC: Inconsistent capitalization of eponym in same context (Initiated 2588 days ago on 21 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. This one is an actual request for comments (how ironic) and is not designed to require closure by an uninvolved administrator. Deryck C. 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry#Citation needed on national anthems: RFC (Initiated 2565 days ago on 13 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#RFC: Accurate dates in citation metadata (Initiated 2613 days ago on 26 September 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jadwiga of Poland#RfC: Elizabeth Bonifacia's alternative names (Initiated 2592 days ago on 17 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Roman Polanski#Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2017 (Initiated 2590 days ago on 19 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkey#RfC--lead (Initiated 2599 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Jianianhualong#(Long-belated) Rfc for level of anatomical detail in dinosaur articles (Initiated 2599 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}}. The RfC is not designed to require closure by an uninvolved administrator. Deryck C. 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Peter Hore#RfC on "criminal" description (Initiated 2599 days ago on 10 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Danica Roem#RFC (Initiated 2566 days ago on 12 November 2017)? Thanks, MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
- It does not appear to me a consensus will be reached, which is disappointing. It would be better to have an outsider make the call. -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This discussion, with WP:BLP implications, has stalled with very unclear consensus; !votes are about evenly split. Administrative assistance would be appreciated. Original question has moderately biased wording, but still spurred extensive discussion on the core issue, and the core issue is one that's important to the article. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)- Retracted; didn't realize it had already been requested here earlier in the process. Not sure what template to use here so the bot cleans it up, sorry. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Merged duplicate sections. Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Retracted; didn't realize it had already been requested here earlier in the process. Not sure what template to use here so the bot cleans it up, sorry. Jhugh95 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}}Brustopher (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations#Gwyneth Paltrow and Courtney Love (Initiated 2564 days ago on 14 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please disposition Talk:Shooting of Daniel Shaver#Requested move 10 December 2017. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by bd2412. Cunard (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2566 days ago on 12 November 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Emily Beecham#Request for comment and close the RFC please ? (FWIW I think consensus in the discussion is obvious however as I've !voted and have made my objections in the past I'd rather someone not related to the discussion closes it), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by davey. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Rihanna#Definition of the word Legacy (Initiated 2577 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Template talk:Marriage#Death (Initiated 2591 days ago on 17 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Please access and close. --RAN (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
- Needs closure from uninvolved editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 16:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2593 days ago on 15 October 2017) Legobot has removed the RfC template. Jc86035 (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Summarising the crux will be difficult and IMO, a read through each and evry argument will be much better for interested parties in future.Winged Blades Godric 14:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} at [9] --slakr\ talk / 15:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved editor please close this discussion. Thanks. (Initiated 2582 days ago on 27 October 2017) --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 18:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Victims list (Initiated 2593 days ago on 16 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} at [10] --slakr\ talk / 17:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Metric#Primary topic (Initiated 2582 days ago on 27 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Did not really need a close, as the result is obvious, but done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox element#RfC regarding use of Respell key for the names of elements (Initiated 2587 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 19:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:New Israel Fund#Request for comment (Initiated 2585 days ago on 24 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} --slakr\ talk / 19:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Recent years#RFC: Do we need to differentiate between "recent years" and other years?
(Initiated 2593 days ago on 15 October 2017) Would an uninvolved editor kindly assess consensus and close this debate? — JFG talk 12:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 17:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2556 days ago on 22 November 2017) This has been going on for weeks, with an overwhelming consensus and a very small number of editors opposing the consensus continuing to beat the horse. It needs to be shut down. I'd have closed it myself except I !voted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English)#Used in English-language sources (Initiated 2596 days ago on 13 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} --slakr\ talk / 17:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2540 days ago on 7 December 2017) Could an experienced editor or administrator please assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Wikipedia and the Dec. 12th “Break The Internet” day of action for net neutrality? The proposal itself is moot at this point (and as such the discussion no longer needs to be open) but it would still be nice to get some closure on this in case something like this happens in the future. SkyWarrior 18:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} No need.If this comes up yet again, we will see yet again.Winged BladesGodric 16:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2582 days ago on 26 October 2017) Would an experienced editor assess consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#RfC about linking in quotations? NPalgan2 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017) Voting took place, remains to assess consensus and close. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 02:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Steve Bannon#RfC on white nationalism allegations in intro (Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Brustopher - duplicate of above. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Limes#Rfc regarding Limes (Initiated 2588 days ago on 21 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't... what? I'm lost on this one. I tried reading it a couple of times over several days, but I still leave scratching my head as to what's actually being discussed, craving some sort of alcoholic beverage with a lime in it—yet I'm entirely aware that's the wrong reaction and not even the right subject. :P --slakr\ talk / 19:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}, though I doubt it's a particularly helpful closure. Huon (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2569 days ago on 9 November 2017) Recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: I've had to de-archive this discussion so that it can be properly closed. The closure should be simple, judging by the Survey section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julie Payette#RfC on subject's title (Initiated 2587 days ago on 22 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Request for comments on the Geobox/Infobox river templates (Initiated 2587 days ago on 22 October 2017) Many Thanks...Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Relisted Closing this RfC would potentially affect over 15,000 different articles. In the circumstances it's appropriate to leave things running a bit longer and get more input/generate more discussion. Brustopher (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} for archival. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#RfC on shooting description in lede (Initiated 2581 days ago on 28 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:2017 Las Vegas shooting#Rfc: What word or words should describe the person responsible for the 2017 shooting in the opening sentence? (Initiated 2573 days ago on 5 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This topic ban proposal concerning Carmaker1 was allowed to archive without administrative action despite universal consensus from 9 editors that a topic ban should be enacted. Requesting closure and/or sanction per consensus. Cjhard (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Aervanath Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Turkey#RfC Genocides (Initiated 2577 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#RfC about use of unverified (Initiated 2578 days ago on 31 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#RfC about sharing sensitive info/classified info (Initiated 2571 days ago on 7 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling (Initiated 2579 days ago on 30 October 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Julian day#Request For Comment on presentation of algorithms (Initiated 2577 days ago on 1 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2570 days ago on 8 November 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC here and close this debate. tahc chat 21:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2550 days ago on 27 November 2017) An uninvolved editor is requested to close the RfC at the above link with an assessment of all the concerns and arguments pertaining to mention in the article lede of Prince Charles' status as heir. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{already done}} by Seraphim System. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Blake Shelton#Country in lead (Initiated 2557 days ago on 21 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Godzilla#Having a last appearance (Initiated 2561 days ago on 17 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Emily Thornberry#"Bollocks" (Initiated 2549 days ago on 29 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2572 days ago on 6 November 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ooh I was just going to list this here - you bet me to it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2569 days ago on 9 November 2017) -- Tavix (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#RfC on potential projects (Initiated 2543 days ago on 5 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{Done}} by the proposer! Winged BladesGodric 14:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
A discussion which had been very active for a few days (including a very long section above the "new" RfC) but on which nobody has commented since 1 December. Although this involves possibly sensitive cultural issues it should be a simple close for any experienced closer (not necessarily admin). (Initiated 2549 days ago on 28 November 2017) Cheers, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The previous RfC is 35000 words long...that's almost a novel. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{Done}} Winged BladesGodric 14:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2570 days ago on 8 November 2017), with 12 users voting and discussing; the last comment was made on November 12th. Request closure from a neutral administrator.GreyShark (dibra) 07:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note - another comment was added in the discussion on November 27th.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Star_Wars:_The_Last_Jedi#Should_we_include_an_Audience_response_section? (Initiated 2528 days ago on 20 December 2017)? Thanks, AfD hero (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2550 days ago on 27 November 2017) Any chance someone could assess whether there is consensus to change the guideline to allow "telenovela" as a disambiguation term for certain types of TV series? --woodensuperman 10:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Winged blades of godric did {{done}} it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Linda Sarsour#RfC: Kaepernick, NFL protest (Initiated 2559 days ago on 19 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
(Initiated 2510 days ago on 7 January 2018) This and the related discussions Talk:First-move_advantage_in_chess#Chess_has_two_players,_White_and_Black and Talk:First-move_advantage_in_chess#The_Lede_v_The_Article... need to be closed by a neutral party. 222.153.250.135 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC) withdrawn following SPI222.153.250.135 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{close}} by Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
RfC is no longer needed as new sources available answer the question at hand. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}} ChieftanTartarus Ok so then you just remove the rfc tag. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:British Jews#RfC on 'Communal institutions' section (Initiated 2565 days ago on 13 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} by Dennis Brown. Thank you for the close! Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Succession to the British throne#RfC about Prince Harry or Henry (Initiated 2550 days ago on 28 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
RfC recently expired. Needs a close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2527 days ago on 21 December 2017) Please disposition Talk:2017 Washington train derailment#Requested move 21 December 2017. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "disposition"? Makes no sense to me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Redrose64:, please assess the consensus and close. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a strange use of "disposition" then. Not really moving things about at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - @Redrose64:, please assess the consensus and close. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Restored comments on military service controversy to 2010 campaign section and Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Request for comments on where to place military service controversy
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Restored comments on military service controversy to 2010 campaign section and Talk:Richard Blumenthal#Request for comments on where to place military service controversy (Initiated 2571 days ago on 7 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- This should be easier to close now, due to an additional !vote for the majority. Alsee (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed with consensus for coverage in the U.S. Senate - 2010 election section. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2566 days ago on 12 November 2017) Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at this RFC, thanks Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}}. --GRuban (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:One America News Network#RfC about sentence describing coverage instructions of specific subjects by owner Charles Herring in the lead (Initiated 2569 days ago on 9 November 2017)}}? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as there is no consensus for inclusion of the questioned text in the lead. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:June 2017 Brussels attack#RfC on MILAN SCHREUER and DAN BILEFSKY article in New York Times (Initiated 2572 days ago on 6 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{done}} Closed as the disputed text does not have consensus for inclusion as originally quoted. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Eggishorn just want to point out that putting {{nac}} etc is unecessary for RfCs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Galobtter:, while not required (so far as I know), i think it is good practice nonetheless. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Eggishorn just want to point out that putting {{nac}} etc is unecessary for RfCs. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of areas of London#RFC Project to cleanup the child pages of this page (Initiated 2557 days ago on 21 November 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- {{not done}} better to just read the discussion, Huskion just got the feedback he wanted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Benito Mussolini/Archive 4#Infobox image RfC (Initiated 2546 days ago on 2 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Robert E. Lee#RfC about the use of wp:primary sources and the proposed passage (Initiated 2536 days ago on 12 December 2017)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2501 days ago on 16 January 2018) "Procedural close" suggested at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 16#Template:Wikidata icon. Batternut (talk)
- {{Not done}} No reason to close something that was opened yesterday. Nihlus 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- procedural/it'd be better to discuss later closes are a thing.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm aware, and this is not a case for it. Nihlus 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- procedural/it'd be better to discuss later closes are a thing.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm..This definitely does not qualify for a speedy close by any margin of discretion.And, as a rule of thumb, Wikidata-related things usually never qualifies!:)Winged BladesGodric 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mostly that there's also an RfC going on and so it is somewhat redundant. I know it is controversial.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm..This definitely does not qualify for a speedy close by any margin of discretion.And, as a rule of thumb, Wikidata-related things usually never qualifies!:)Winged BladesGodric 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2511 days ago on 6 January 2018) Please assess the consensus and close Talk:Memoirs_of_a_Murderer_(album)#Requested_move_6_January_2018. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{not done}} kinda, no reason to put this here as it will get closed within a reasonable time as it is listed at WP:RM; relisted by TonyBallioni 2 days ago. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - Not done yet, please leave this notice in place until the discussion is resolved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- It'll get resolved eventually (in reasonable time) being an request move listed on WP:RM.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply - Not done yet, please leave this notice in place until the discussion is resolved. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
(Initiated 2513 days ago on 4 January 2018) Please assess the consensus and close Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018 January 4#Wu Yongning. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)